Grand Rapids Pundit

Proposal 2: Mayor Heartwell and the U of M

The fallout from Proposal 2 continues. Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell has apparently decided that he wants the taxpayers of the city to pay for a federal lawsuit to stop the implementation of Proposal 2. Heartwell uses the same logical contortions of groups like BAMN to try and make an argument that banning racism and sexism somehow is discriminatory. The article linked above actually says that Prop 2 is a “civil rights violation.” It’s not clear if that’s a Heartwell quote or summary of his position, but it’s typical of the utter hypocrisy of the pro-racism lobby that Heartwell apparently belongs to.

But an even more interesting issue arises here. Mayor Heartwell, along with all the public officials in the state of Michigan, are required to take an oath of office. That oath reads as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the
United States, and the Constitution of this State, and that I will faithfully perform the duties of the office of __________________ in and for the City of _________________, County of ____________ and the State of Michigan, according to the best of my ability, so help me God.

Mayor Heartwell has taken a similar oath to “support… the Constitution of this State…” Proposal 2 is an amendment to the state’s constitution. The mayor is therefore looking at violating his oath and defying the state’s constitution. Filing a lawsuit to try and stop a state constitutional amendment certainly cannot be defined as supporting the constitution.

Perhaps the University of Michigan’s president, Mary Sue Coleman, has seen the legal light on this issue. She has decided to back off her earlier statements that she would fight Proposal 2 in court. When she addressed the university’s Board of Regents this week, she didn’t mention any lawsuit. In fact, she committed to working within the law:

“With last week’s passage of Proposal 2, I want to again assure the campus community that we remain fully dedicated to a diverse university and that we will obey the laws of our state,” said Coleman. “What will be essential is that all of us - students, faculty and staff and administrators - pursue all possible creative solutions to achieve diversity at the university within the boundaries of the law.”

We tried to find some statistics relating to minority enrollment at the U of M to compare with minority graduation, but we were unable to find that information. However, we did find some information on how California’s Proposition 209, similar to Michigan’s Proposal 2, affected universities in California.

The interesting outcome in California appears to be an increase in the number of minorities graduating from universities. That’s right, an increase. Why? Because enrolling students who would not otherwise qualify for admission to a top-tier university actually does the student a disservice. Think about it this way: if you were a B-average student and a top university admitted you based on something other than your grades, chances are you wouldn’t do so well, surrounded by A-average students in a very rigorous academic environment. Students not qualified to attend a top-tier university tend to drop out in higher rates. Therefore, it does them a disservice.

By admitting students to universities largely based on academic ability, students tend to apply for and attend the university that is closer to the academic rigor level they will succeed in. Therefore, the effect of Proposition 209 is that minority students tend to apply for admission at universities at the level of rigor they are more comfortable in. Therefore, instead of dropping out due to an inability to keep up, they tend to graduate at higher levels.

The reality of minority graduation rates bear this out. Rates stayed the same both before and after the passage of Proposition 209. That is, regardless of admissions levels of minority students, graduations rates were flat.

But of course, special interests to hate to see special favors melt away will do anything they can to preserve the status quo, as our mayor is demonstrating. Never mind the fact that the city is constantly complaining about a lack of funding and funds for critical services - apparently it’s more important to use our taxpayer dollars to try and overturn the vote of a majority of Michiganders.

Posted by: GRPundit on Wednesday, 22nd Nov, 2006

Contortionist Logic and Proposal 2

An article from the Daily Californian today has some more detail on the lawsuit(s) filed to try and stop the adoption of the anti-racism Proposal 2, which was passed by a 58% to 42% margin last week. We don’t even know what to call the lack of logic detailed in the article, but here are a couple of telling quotes:

“For minority students on these campuses without affirmative action, it’s a degrading experience and that cannot be a reality for any more students,”

What? In other words, minority students who do not receive preferential treatment just because of the color of their skin are somehow feeling degraded? Do they understand the contortion of logic it requires for that to make sense? The person who is quoted is an alum of the University of Berkeley and someone who has joined the lawsuit. She is implicitly stating that minorities are incapable of succeeding without preferential treatment, and that by not receiving that preferential treatment, they are humiliated. That is racism!

What we’re seeing here is the true color of those who have been supporting affirmative action. They are the latent racists because it is clear that they do not think minorities can succeed without preferential treatment. They want people treated differently, based solely on their skin color - a little bit of DNA.

Another gem of lunacy:

“Prohibiting affirmative action in Michigan means that people all over this country are subjected to discrimination that comes into play.”

That’s according to Luke Massey, a co-chair of By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), the violent and racist organization which is trying to block the implementation of Proposal 2. So ending affirmative action, which is in itself a form of racism and discrimination, results in discrimination? Proposal 2 makes it illegal to engage in race discrimination! What planet do these people come from? Do they have a grasp of the meaning of words in the English language?

Nevertheless, these lawsuits will fail because they always have in other states. They are just trying to save their old ways of set-asides and preferential treatment. We know that whenever the status-quo is threatened, we’ll be subjected to threats of doom and a falling sky by those who benefited from such a system. But, it’s no more. We finally have a color blind government in Michigan.

Posted by: GRPundit on Monday, 13th Nov, 2006

GR Pundit Election Wrap-Up

GR Pundit would like to express contentment with the outcome of the elections in Michigan this year. We have been in favor in a split government, that’s why we weren’t very big fans of a DeVos election. The re-election of Jennifer Granholm will ensure that continued split, with the addition of a Democrat-controlled State House. We just hope that the legislature and governor can get together and see the light about really turning Michigan around. Pet economic development plans won’t work - and when government picks economic winners and losers, we all lose. It’s time to make Michigan friendly to all businesses, not just a few that the governor likes.

As for the proposals, we are very pleased about how they turned out.

Proposal 1 - Ensuring that state park funds are actually spent on state parks - Passed

Proposal 2 - Banning racist hiring, admissions, and contracting practices by any unit of government in Michigan - Passed

Proposal 3 - Allowing morning doves to be hunted - Failed

Proposal 4 - Banning eminiment domain for economic development purposes - Passed

Proposal 5 - Setting up mandatory funding levels for K-16 education - Failed

We were most worried about Proposal 5 passing because it would have caused the most economic damage and would have done nothing but protect the bloated public education bureacuracy and continue the lack of accountability of education in Michigan. Now it’s time to lift the cap on charter schools - which cost less than traditional public schools and do a better job. Parents desperately want and need the choice.

Proposal 2, which we were also hopeful would pass, did so handily. Michigan, and any unit of government in Michgian, will no longer be able to engage in racist hiring, admissions, and contracting practices. We now have true equality in Michigan. Of course, groups such as By Any Mean Necessay (BAMN) have filed lawsuits trying to overturn the passage of Proposal 2. This just shows their complete contempt for the will of the people. In addition, their lawsuit invokes the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in trying to argue that creating a color-blind government somehow creates unequal treatment.

Let the gnashing of teeth begin.

Posted by: GRPundit on Thursday, 9th Nov, 2006

End State-Sponsored Racism - Vote YES on Michigan’s Proposal 2

Proposal 2 (the Michigan Civil Rights Iniative), which will be on the ballot next week, will end racist hiring, contracting, and admissions practices in Michigan if it passes. In short, it will end all state-sponsored racism and sexism. Equal means equal, so we’re voting YES on 2!

Posted by: GRPundit on Sunday, 5th Nov, 2006

Racism on the Ballot

Well, it’s finally official, the Michigan Supreme Court turned down the appeal to a lawsuit brought on by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) to stop the anti-racist Michigan Civil Rights Initiative from appearing on the ballot in November.

It comes down to this - the MCRI will prohibit any unit of government in Michigan from engaging in racist hiring, bidding, and admissions. It’s as simple as that. Anyone who opposes MCRI implicitly agrees that racism is acceptable.