Say no to 2 op ed piece from the freep

I would post what the yes on 2 crowd say but then again I have a policy of not giving a damn what conservatives, right wingers and Republicans opinions are. VOTE NO: Affirmative action aims for healthy, fair diversity, not quotas VOTE NO: Affirmative action aims for healthy, fair diversity, not quotas BY ANTHONY S. CHEN October 2, 2006 Anthony S. Chen Civil rights is never a straightforward subject, and Michigan is once again the site of a major controversy. In November, voters will decide whether to approve a constitutional amendment banning affirmative action. The debate is bewildering. Both sides claim the true legacy of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Both sides lament the achievement gap. Both sides purport to cherish inclusion. What's really going on? That question is easy to answer. Voting for the amendment would get rid of affirmative action as it's practiced today by the State of Michigan. But what exactly is affirmative action? In higher education, affirmative action is a policy that gives universities the discretion to take race and sex into account as one "plus-factor" among many when making an admissions decision. That's pretty clear, whether or not you agree that it's right. But some supporters of the amendment have muddied the waters by insinuating that affirmative action allows a school to "pick winners and losers based solely on race and sex." Some have even claimed that affirmative action is basically a quota system. That makes everyone nervous. Nothing seems more alien to the American creed than a group quota that disregards individual merit. But it's important to realize that the charge of quotas is almost always leveled against a civil rights policy -- justified or not. It was justified in 1974, when Alan Bakke sued the medical school at the University of California, Davis. The school did actually reserve 16 places for minorities (out of 100) in the matriculating class. But the accusation of quotas was not justified in 1945, when New York power broker Robert Moses directed it against a proposed state law against discrimination. The law was simple; it prohibited discrimination in employment. For much of U.S. history, whenever a controversy over civil rights has erupted, "quotas" is almost always the first criticism to emerge. That makes it even more important for Michiganders to remain clear-sighted. The reality these days is that affirmative action is not a quota system. Instead, it's a highly restricted policy that must to adhere to tight constitutional boundaries. When the Supreme Court gave affirmative action a new lease on life in 2003, it set clear limits on what was permissible. The court ruled out racial quotas, set-asides, separate tracks, automatic point systems -- any setup in which race or sex was made the defining feature of the application. Only affirmative action of the kind implemented at the University of Michigan Law School was allowed by the court. There, every applicant was evaluated individually. Race or gender was only one of many factors that could contribute toward the diversity of the student body. That's the real policy at stake, and it's not radical at all. In fact, it seems rather mild. But it's most certainly a policy that the November amendment would end. I hope that Michigan doesn't end the kind of affirmative action the Supreme Court approved. As a college educator, I think there is value in having a diverse campus. I have seen it firsthand in the classroom, where students of different backgrounds have a chance to engage each other personally to learn about their differences -- and to see what they have in common. Affirmative action is controversial. But civil rights is always a tough issue, and progress has invariably required Americans to heed the better angels of their nature. I have faith in the people of Michigan; they've shown such mettle before. In 1955, Michigan became one of the first two states in the Midwest to strongly outlaw job discrimination. It beat Congress by nearly 10 years. By rejecting the proposed amendment in November, Michigan could act affirmatively again to support civil rights. I have great confidence that it will. ANTHONY S. CHEN is a professor at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. Write to him in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 600 W. Fort St., Detroit 48226 or oped@freepress.com.