[Decoder Ring] [Issue Points] [Quotable Quotes] [Myths] [Women and the CRIs: The Facts]

[Jack's Columns] [Diane's Columns] [Reviews] [Links] [Contact Us]

----------

THE (STATE) CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE BALLOT LANGUAGE:

The State shall not discriminate against nor 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.

----------

For 2008, Race Free Zone is dedicated to being the no-spin zone of the Civil Rights Initiative movement. This year, we encourage all people, media, and candidates of Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska to tour the information we have posted here for their consideration as they have the chance to vote on Civil Rights Initiatives in their states this November. We invite all media in the United States to tour this site for facts about this movement. We are strictly fact-oriented. All opinions are clearly shown to be opinions.

The Civil Rights Initiatives are anti-race preference and anti-gender preference ballot initiatives. This all started when California passed Proposition 209, eliminating race and gender preferences in state government, including universities and colleges supported by the state, state employment, and state contracting. The surprising success of this proposal spurred the people of Washington State to do the same, and in 2006 Michigan became the third state to stop the destructive habit of using race and gender preferences in its state education, employment and contracting.

Because of passage in those three states, 25% of the United States' citizens live in non-preference/non-discrimination states.

Below you will find our FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. We invite all questions and any challenge to the answers. Challenges that turn out to be true will be immediately accepted and put up front. We hide nothing. We are fact-based. All postings have been researched, and are cited.

Race Free Zone is constructed to be of use to media, campaigners, debaters, petition circulators, candidates, and to any citizen who wants clear answers and facts.

----------

Why are these initiatives called "civil rights" initiatives?

Don't we already have this?

Are there "hidden consequences"?

Will gender-specific programs be eliminated?

Are gender-specific college sports "endangered"?

Will the Civil Rights Initiatives "threaten" or "put at risk" women's health, breast cancer screenings, shelters, domestic violence programs or gender-specific health programs funded by the state?

Is the language "deceptive"?

Do women make only 70% of men's incomes?

Are the circulators paid?

Are "outsiders" invading your state?

Who's on their side? Who's on our side?

Has affirmative action in college admissions actually resulted in a higher FAILURE rate for minority-student graduation?

Are women incompetent or is the State government sexist?

Why would a mother of a multi-race family be in favor of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative?

Is America more racist now than in the past?

Is it true that multi-millionaire immigrants and wealthy Americans are getting affirmative action set-asides for "disadvantaged minorities"?

Did Ward Connerly "bless" the KKK?

----------

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

La Shawn Barber of Townhall.com on the MCRI

Race preferences defeated in Michigan By La Shawn BarberTuesday, November 14, 2006
Send an email to La Shawn Barber
Email It Print It Take Action Book Club
Read Article & Comments (39) Trackbacks(0) Post Your Comments
If you thought the turbulent Civil Rights Movement – culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – ended skin color discrimination, you were mistaken.
Half a century ago, America faced a moral and legal struggle to end government-mandated preferential treatment based on race. Half a century later, America faces a moral and legal struggle to end government-mandated preferential treatment based on race.
Rev. Al Sharpton gives the keynote speech to the Yale Political Union on affirmative action, at Yale, in New Haven, Conn., Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006. Sharpton vigorously defended affirmative action and criticized conservatives who seek to ban the use of race and gender preferences in a speech that opened debate on the topic at the Yale Political Union. (AP Photo/Douglas Healey)
Related Audio:
Michigan voters opposed affirmative action
Our government still treats people differently based on the color of their skin. This time around, minorities (Asians excluded) benefit from unconstitutional race-based programs. So-called equal opportunity policies in federal, state, and local agencies across the country are nothing more than thinly veiled race preferences.
In the last 10 years, however, at least three states have done away with discriminatory programs. In 1996, Californians voted YES on Proposition 209, which amended the state constitution to bar public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin by 54 percent. In 1998, voters in Washington State passed a similar measure by 58 percent.
On November 7, 2006, 58 percent of voters in Michigan said YES to Proposal 2, which bars the state from treating its citizens differently based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.
Groups like the hilariously named Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) tried to defeat the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) every step of the way.
Two years ago, BAMN and other groups challenged the legality of the petition to get MCRI on the ballot. A Michigan circuit court ruled that the petition language was misleading and should not have been approved, but a Court of Appeals panel disagreed, unanimously affirming the legality of the petition language. The case went to the Michigan Supreme Court, which declined to hear it. As a result, MCRI appeared on the ballot as Proposal 2, and the people of Michigan decided that government-backed discrimination had seen its final days.
Some were shocked, of course, including University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman. In a meandering post-election speech, she expressed disappointment that voters rejected the government’s use of race preferences and vowed not to allow California’s “failed experiment that has dramatically weakened the diversity of the state’s most selective universities” to “take seed here at Michigan.”
This woman, a state employee at a state institution subject to the will of the people of the state, is barking mad and ill-informed.
Regarding California’s “failed experiment,” minority enrollment and graduation rates have improved since that state banned race preferences. Eryn Hadley of the Pacific Legal Foundation found that the black graduation rate of the freshman class entering UC Berkley in fall 1998 – post-Proposition 209 – increased 6.5 percent. At UC San Diego, the average freshman GPAs for minorities “all but converged with the GPAs of white and Asian students, just one year after Proposition 209 was implemented.” See Did the Sky Really Fall?
In other words, when admission is based on academic qualifications rather than skin color, Hadley contends, black students are capable of competing with whites and Asians.
Skin-color obsessed, race-baiting, and will of the people-hating folks like Coleman couldn’t care less if black admittees are academically underqualified or unprepared to do the work. As long as minority admission rates are impressive on paper (Asians excluded) and brown faces adorn the university’s web sites and admissions brochures, liberals get to feel good about themselves.
And America’s moral and legal struggle continues…
La Shawn Barber is a freelance writer and Townhall.com book reviewer who blogs at http://www.lashawnbarber.com/.
Be the first to read La Shawn Barber's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. Sign up today!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home