This letter appeared in the Detroit Free Press on September 6, 2006.  It was the only dissenter among several excellent letters defending MCRI.  We’re publishing it because it has a rare difference from the usual pro-affirmative action op-ed: it openly admits their goal---that some people’s rights should be curtailed in order for minorities to have their rights.  Yet it then goes on to say “We all benefit  . . . from equal opportunity.”  This person, like those who defend giving group-rights to some while denying rights to others, clearly don’t understand the meaning of the words “equal” or “rights.”

No equal field yet
The problem with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is that it is based on the false premise that if affirmative action for minorities is ended, there will no longer be any discrimination at all, against anyone. Fairness will reign. College admissions will be "color-blind." Merit alone will prevail, it is argued.
Merit cannot prevail, however, on an unequal playing field where the majority enjoys an overwhelming head start and controls the outcome. Without affirmative action, the scales will inevitably be tipped once again in favor of the majority, with no effective legal protection in place to assure equal opportunity and treatment for minorities.
Unfortunately, protecting the rights of minorities sometimes means restricting or limiting the rights of others. It is true that when this happens, it hurts the people adversely impacted. It does not hurt any less, however, when the people harmed are those who have been historically subject to disadvantage. It is also true, as the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in its University of Michigan affirmative action decisions, that we all benefit, both minority and majority, from an inclusive, diverse society that prizes equality of opportunity and the active participation of all of its constituent minorities.
Joseph Martinico
Troy

<--Go back to the blog