A man at a forum asks the operative question.
Michigan’s ban on racial and gender preferences, upheld this week by the SCOTUS, was passed by voters in 2006 through a citizen initiative led by Jennifer Gratz, now leading the XIV Foundation, and Leon Drolet, a former state legislator and activist. Ten years before that, Ward Connerly led a similar initiative petition effort in California, which is specifically addressed in the video.
Do you support negative action programs?
I didn’t think so. But you might be more inclined to support such programs if they’re labeled “affirmative action.”
Around the country citizens have been fighting to stop government programs that grant preferences to some citizens over others on the basis of their race or sex. To me, and apparently to most voters, such preferences are simply racist and sexist. Voters in California, Washington State, and Michigan have passed constitutional amendments to prevent such unfair practices in government programs.
Others protest that ending racial preferences will end all so-called “affirmative action.” Well, that’s only true if such programs do indeed set up racial and gender preferences.
These protesters go on to demand that those campaigning to end these preferences must use their phraseology of opposing affirmative action. That is that these civil rights campaigns should say they are anti-good, anti-positive, anti-affirmative action.
But ask yourself: affirmative for whom? A general hiring policy should never favor some people over others on grounds irrelevant to job performance.
Voters in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska will have a chance to decide this issue through citizen initiatives placed on their states’ ballots this November.
I trust they’ll vote affirmatively.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.