Knowing they’ve already lost the race-preferences debate, the Civil Rights Initiatives’ opponents have launched “scare-women” campaigns, claiming that white women benefit most from affirmative action, that women’s sports and medical services will dry up, that programs for women’s breast cancer screenings, domestic violence shelters, and any gender-specific program will be “endangered,” “threatened,” or “put at risk.” Notice that they carefully use those terms. They do not say “will be eliminated” because those programs won’t be eliminated, and have not been in any of the three states which have passed the initiatives.
There are three primary facts which they will hide or openly lie about:
1) CRI does not affect medical services, or any other services than state education, jobs, and contracting. CRI makes allowances for any reasonable need for gender recognition, such as female undercover cops, female nurses or counselors in women’s shelters, or any legitimate recognition of differences between men and women.
2) In California and Washington, women’s shelters, services, health and cancer screenings, the Sally Ride Program, and college sports programs are thriving. Scroll down for more information.
3) Women do not exist in bubbles. They have husbands, sons, and brothers who have been penalized for being men. Would a woman vote to favor her daughter at her son’s expense, or would she want her children treated equally, like individuals?
See Diane Carey’s recently published column “Women Roar Without Affirmative Action” in the “Diane’s Columns” section. She is the mother of a white daughter, a white son, and a Hispanic son—race/gender preferences threaten to divide her children. As a working woman from a family of working women, Diane does not believe Michigan’s professional women got their jobs to fill sex quotas.
SCROLL DOWN FOR PERINENT FACTS AND QUOTATIONS, AND INFORMATION ABOUT EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK, AND WHY WOMEN DO NOT MAKE LESS MONEY THAN MEN FOR THE SAME JOBS.
“As far as can be determined, the UAW, AFL-CIO and IBT have never had black or female CEOs. The UAW has been around for 70 years; what percentage of their membership is black? What percentage is Hispanic? What percentage is Asian-American? What percentage are women? Why the, with affirmative action in place for 40 years, has there never been a black, Latino, Asian or female CEO? Are they not qualified?” (Jack Lifton, retired auto industry executive and employee of several minority-owned supply companies)
“Cardinal Maida states the Catholic Church will assist in the fight against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and promote the practice of racial and gender preferences. Would this be the same church that prohibits women from leadership roles?” (Steve Sutton, editorial letter to the Detroit Free Press, submitted 3/31/06)
WOMEN:
WOMEN’S HEALTH RESEARCH IN CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON STATE
Our opponents claim that CRI will endanger and possibly end research on women’s health. If that is so, then the same would have happened in California and Washington State after passing their anti-discrimination initiatives.
How is it possible that the following state-funded agencies exist at all:
In Washington State, the Center for Women’s and Gender Research, which focuses on “developing and expanding collaborations between investigators that study women’s health and gender disparities through collaboration with Washington State University, the University of Alaska, The University of Hawaii and West Virginia University.
The State of California Office of Women’s Health, California Department of Health Services: Reproductive Health Issues, Young Women’s Health Issues, Gynecological Cancer Information Program, California Women’s Health Survey, Women’s Health Council, and Women’s Health Month.
The California Breast Cancer Research Program: studying risk, prevention, detection, treatment, and living well after cancer diagnosis.
How can these state programs possibly exist in states that already passed their own versions of CRI? Because our opponents are engaging in a campaign of fear, and they’re not telling the truth about real results.
The misleading and hypocritical Debbie Dingell: Debbie Dingell, Executive Director of Community and Government Relations at General Motors Corporation, says “I can tell you I wouldn’t have my job at General Motors had affirmative action not existed.” Reality check: Debbie Dingell has her job at GM not because of affirmative action. She has her cushy job because her husband is John Dingell, the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives (25 consecutive terms, 50 years) and he has been friendly to GM’s corporate interests.
Debbie Dingell’s comment implies that all women who have worked for General Motors over the past century, including thousands of women in Michigan, all got their jobs because of affirmative action. How is it possible that scores of women worked at GM during WWII and continued on to have long careers there? This was before affirmative action. How can that be possible?
Do women in Michigan really believe they got their jobs because of affirmative action? Do they believe they didn’t earn their positions?
“Why should women vote to discriminate against our own sons, husbands and brothers? Women don’t exist in a vacuum. The opposition changed their argument from race to women because they think they can get white women to vote against the men in their own families. I won’t vote against my own husband or my white son in favor of my daughter or my brown son. Affirmative action tries to pit my family against itself, and you against your own family members.” Diane Carey
The opposition makes big claims that programs to help minorities and girls go into science or math will be unconstitutional, and that sounds bad, but what if we ask this: should a white boy who needs help in math or science be denied that help? How about if we just treat them like students and not like colors or sexes, and give help to those who need help? Why would I vote to help my daughter, but leave my son behind?
WOMEN’S SPORTS:
Despite opposition claims that women’s college sports programs will suffer or disappear, the websites of the University of California system, the California State University system, and the Washington State University system show thriving programs of women’s basketball, tennis, soccer, rowing, track and field, cross country, golf, swimming and diving, water polo and volleyball. Please check for yourselves.
The opposition says “Women make 67 cents for every dollar earned by a man.” That doesn’t compare apples to apples. Statistically, women tend to choose jobs that pay less but have more flexibility, less risk, and can be left and picked up later, so we can have children and raise families. When comparing jobs that are high-risk, require years of uninterrupted dedication, might require moving across the country, and using statistics that analyze single women with no children, then wages statistics become equal between men and women, and often women even earn a little more.
(continued)
“Unlike blacks, women’s percentage share of the jobs in professional and technical occupations declined in the middle decades of the 20th century—and then rose later. A similar pattern of fall followed by rise can be seen in women’s percentage shares of the college and university degrees required for such occupations. . . . Women’s representation in professional and technical occupations declined by 9 percent from 1940 to 1950 and then by another 9 percent from 1950 to 1959. Women received 34 percent of the Bachelor’s degrees in 1920, but only 24 percent in 1950. They received just over 15 percent of the doctoral degrees in 1920 but just under 10 percent in 1950. . . . “If the statistical disparities between women and men are attributable to discrimination by men, then this remarkable history would suggest that men inexplicably became more discriminatory toward women during the first half of the 20th century and then relented later in the second half, causing the trend to reverse.” Thomas Sowell
“Consider that while black men on average earn substantially less than white men, black women at all levels of education earn about the same as white women with comparable credentials. Remarkably, black women with college degrees earn more than white women with college degrees.” (Dinesh D’Souza, The End of Racism, p 301, citing The Economic Status of Black Women, An Exploratory Investigation, Staff Report, U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington D. C. 1990) (continued) “This result directly contradicts to the theory of discrimination which holds that black women are subject to the ‘double jeopardy’ of both racism and sexism. Moreover, since black women are no less black than black men, their relative earnings parity with white women suggests the possibility that factors other than race might account for the black male earnings deficit.”
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED . . . The differences in income between men and women is not legitimately tied to employer discrimination. See the following:
“As women began having fewer children—a trend that began in the 19th century and continued on into the 1930’s—they became better represented in higher levels of education and professional occupations. Then, then birth rates began to rise again, from the 1930’s to the 1950’s, women began to be less well represented in these higher educational and occupational levels. The role of men in all this was primarily that of fathers of the children born to women. . .
“The very same trends occurred in the hiring of faculty at women’s college, run by women administrators.” (Thomas Sowell, citing Helen Astin, “Career Profiles of Women Doctorates,” 1973)
Our opponents say: Trish Knight, president of Business and Professional Women of Michigan, said that despite gains in recent years, Michigan women still lag behind in pay and in advancing to the top rungs of companies.
TRUTH: “The cold fact is that women were in many ways better represented in higher occupational levels in the 1930’s than the 1960’s. This can scarcely be credited to movements that had not yet begun in these earlier times, much less to affirmative action policies that began in the 1970’s. (Thomas Sowell, AAAW, p 133) see below:
“After birth rates began to decline again in the 1960’s, women’s representation in higher levels of education and occupation began to rise again. The crucial role of marriage and child-bearing on women’s economic level can be see by breaking down the female population as a whole into those who do and those who do not become wives and mothers, those whose careers are continuous and those who interrupt their careers to assume domestic responsibilities. As far back as 1971, women who remained unmarried into their thirties and who had worked continually since high school earned slightly more than men of the same description. (“The Economic Role of Women,” The Economic Report of the President, Washington D.C., 1973. Academic women who never married averaged slightly higher incomes in 1968-69--before (gender-based) affirmative action—than academic men who never married. (Thomas Sowell, Affirmative Action Reconsidered, 1975)
“Substantial male-female differences in income reflect the fact that women do get married, do have children, and do interrupt their careers for domestic responsibility more than men do.”
“Women tend to specialize in careers where career interruptions are easier to accommodate – teaching rather than computer engineering, for example. Another factor in male-female differences in earnings is that men tend to specialize in more hazardous occupations that pay higher compensation. Although men are 54 percent of the workforce, they account for 92 percent of job-related deaths.”
Women's sports talking points:
WOMEN’S SPORTS
Opponents claim: "If CRI passes, Women's college sports will be endangered in Michigan."
California and Washington State passed the same measures: Did women's sports disappear at State-funded colleges? Let's check the college websites:
UCLA: Women's Varsity basketball, cross country, golf, gymnastics, rowing, soccer, softball, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball and water polo
Sonoma State University: Women's basketball, soccer, tennis, track, water polo
University of California Santa Barbara: Women's basketball, cross country, soccer, softball, swimming, tennis, track and field, volleyball, water polo
Humboldt State University: Women's cross country, basketball, rowing, soccer, softball, track and field, volleyball
San Diego State University: Women's golf,
San Jose State University: Women's soccer, basketball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, water polo, tennis
Cal Poly: Women's soccer, tennis, basketball, track and field, volleyball
University of California: Women's lacrosse, basketball, golf, cross country, rowing, track, tennis, swimming and diving, volleyball, basketball
University of Southern California: Women basketball, cross country, golf, rowing, truck, tennis, swimming and diving, volleyball, water polo.
In Washington State:
Washington State University: Women's basketball, soccer, rowing and volleyball
Everygreen State College, Olympia: Women's basketball, soccer
Central Washington University: Women's soccer and volleyball
Western Washington University: Women's basketball, rowing, golf, soccer, lacrosse and rugby
Eastern Washington University: Women’s basketball, soccer, track, tennis, golf.
So it seems that women's sports did not disappear because of the end of discrimination between the sexes by California or Washington State governments. This pattern is mirrored on the campuses of University of Michigan and Michigan State U, and other state colleges in Michigan, which passed the no-preferences initiative in 2006. Check the state website, and the individual college websites. You don’t have to take our word for this. See for yourself.