Debate over Affirmative Action proposal brought to campus

Proposal 2 supporters, opponents spar over ban on preferential treatment

by Paul White
Vanguard Staff Writer

October 9, 2006 —

The question of whether or not to amend the constitution banning affirmative action in public education, hiring, and contracting brought together opposing sides Tuesday in the Regional Education Center's Alan W. Ott Auditorium.

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which garnered enough votes to force the issue to the November ballot as Proposal 2, favors the elimination of preferential treatment based on race or gender in state-funded positions or institutions. The MCRI was represented by Ben Gurk, a teacher and ex-Marine, and John Knowles, an East Lansing lawyer.

The opponents of Proposal 2, and defenders of affirmative action programs, were Tendaji Ganges, executive vice president of Educational Opportunity Initiatives at the University of Michigan-Flint, and Gloria Woods, vice chair of the Michigan Women's Commission, and program director of the Underground Railroad.

Proposal 2 is the Michigan equivalent of California's Proposition 209, which ended racial and gender preferences at the state level in 1996. A similar amendment, Initiative 200, was passed in Washington state in 1998.

Gurk spoke in favor of Proposal 2, arguing that it would bring the deserving, regardless of skin color or gender, to these public funded positions.

"Our current policies in Michigan represent the antithesis of a meritocracy," Gurk said.

Woods disagreed, arguing that "(Affirmative action) is a tool to ensure individuals gain access to the American Dream."

Woods defended the usage of affirmative action processes, noting that Michigan's record in equitable treatment has been less than stellar.

"Michigan ranks 49th out of 50 states - just above Mississippi - in pay equity between men and women," Woods argued.

Knowles countered Woods' argument, noting that affirmative action policies have been in place since the 1960s.

"What is the purpose of a program that doesn't reach its goal?" Knowles asked rhetorically.

Knowles argued that overt racism is an anachronism, which renders the need for affirmative action programs obsolete.

"There are no mainstream voices of racism in American society today," he said, adding "the time for racial preferences has ended."

Ganges disagreed.

"I submit that there is not an intelligent person in this room that doesn't believe discrimination still exists," Ganges said.

Ganges took issue with the MCRI's labeling of affirmative action as racial preferences.

"It's not about preferences and it's not about race. It's about opportunities being fair," Ganges said.

Gurk challenged this contention of fairness, arguing that it cuts both ways, and is capable of damaging qualified minority and female candidates.

"Because everyone knows these policies of race and gender preferences, there will always be doubts in the back of people's minds," he said.

Both sides agreed that the elimination of racial or gender preferences would have little effect for SVSU students, due to the high acceptance rate of students applying for admission.

Student Association Legislative Chair Aaron Brown felt the debate, which completely filled Ott Auditorium, showed the level of community interest on the topic.

"The turnout was one we were anticipating and we are glad for it," Brown said.

Brown also praised the civility and preparedness of the debaters.

"I thought the panelists for both sides did a good job of making their points," Brown said.

A second session of the MCRI ballot proposal will take place Tuesday, Oct. 24, at 7 p.m. in the Alan W. Ott Auditorium. Gurk and Knowles are both expected to return, debating the local chair of the group opposing Proposal 2 (One United Michigan) Michelle Allen, and John Matlock, the associate vice provost and executive vice president for Academic Affairs at the University of Michigan.

from page 1