The Wall Street Journal has the penultimate word on the MCRI. The ultimate decision is yours. VOTE YES ON PROPOSAL 2

Uncivil Rights

November 7, 2006; Page A12
Today in Michigan, voters face a choice on Proposal 2, which would add the following language to the state constitution: "The state 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."

One might think a law banning discrimination would be a triumph for civil rights. Instead, opponents have spent $3 million trying to defeat it, using some of the most low-down arguments of this low-down election year. Consider this ad running on Detroit radio:

"If you could have prevented 9/11 from ever happening . . . would you have? If you could have prevented Katrina from ever happening . . . what would you have done? On Nov. 7th there's a national disaster headed for Michigan . . . the elimination of affirmative action. And on Nov. 7th there's only one way to stop this disaster . . . by voting no on Proposal 2."

We're not against "negative" advertising, but to equate the abolition of racial and gender preferences to the damage done by terrorists and a hurricane seems a tad hyperbolic, not to mention dishonest.

Women's groups are also in on the distortion. They're using statewide ads to claim that ending affirmative action would lead to an end to women's health clinics, programs to tutor girls in math and science, and funding for breast cancer treatment. There's one problem with these scare tactics: The initiative doesn't apply to health clinics or tutoring programs. Two states -- California and Washington -- have passed nearly identical initiatives, and there has been no negative effect on women's opportunities.

The opponents of Proposal 2 have also rolled out Tommy Amaker and Tom Izzo, the men's basketball coaches at Michigan and Michigan State University, respectively. They declared at a press conference that the initiative would hurt the university system by reducing "diversity." Once upon a time, the goal of civil rights legislation was equal opportunity. But with that goal largely achieved, the proponents of racial preferences have now moved the goalposts to "diversity" for its own sake. This sets race above other qualities, which erodes public confidence in individual merit as opposed to group rights.

In any case, the proponents of the Civil Rights Initiative sent the two coaches a question: "Do you use quotas or preferences when you choose the players on your basketball teams?"

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Michigan universities may not use race as a primary factor in admissions but could use it as one of several. But a new study from the Center for Equal Opportunity shows that race is an even larger factor now than before at the University of Michigan. In 2005, an Asian or white student with a 1240 SAT and 3.2 grade point average had only a 1 in 10 chance gaining admission, while a black student with the same record had a 9 in 10 chance.

Another reason opponents are spending so much money to defeat this initiative is that it would ban the "setting aside" of minority business contracts -- a practice that has made a lot of people very rich in Michigan. Left unsaid is that those set-asides can cost Michigan taxpayers millions of dollars in inflated contracting costs.

There's nothing wrong with schools or businesses considering a candidate's background when deciding whether to admit or hire. But the application of racial and gender quotas has become a corrupting and divisive process that violates our Constitutional heritage of equal rights and fairness. Polls in Michigan had the Civil Rights Initiative narrowly ahead in the final days, notwithstanding the 3-to-1 funding advantage of the opponents. If it prevails despite the distortions used by opponents, it will be a tribute to the faith among Michigan voters in equal opportunity.