“I agree affirmative action is not a panacea for American society, but you cannot put on blinders to reality,” Parker said.
Barbara Grutter, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s 2003 Grutter v Bollinger case, said voters in Michigan reaffirmed “equal justice under the law and were not anti-affirmative action.”
Grutter is president of Toward a Fair Michigan, an anti-affirmative action organization, which is convening a workshop on Dec. 8 to discuss equality and fairness.
“We want to widen the circle and engage people in conversation,” she said. “Who’s afraid of open debate? Everybody.”
William B. Allen, chairman of Toward a Fair Michigan, challenged Dr. Mary Sue Coleman, president of UM, to an open debate after she announced a court challenge to Proposal 2.
“Remember, the constitutional amendment does not ‘ban affirmative action.’ It ‘bans affirmative action programs that give preferences on the basis of race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin,’” Allen said.
“Diversity remains to be accomplished,” he added. “Is affirmative action the response? No.”
But Ellen Buchman, the director of field operations for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said there needs to be enforcement of affirmative action programs at the highest level. She called diversity a crucial factor in the U.S. effort to compete in a global economy.
“Proposal 2 was a rematch of Grutter v Bollinger,” Buchman said. “But we need stronger forces to level the playing field.”
The upcoming Supreme Court cases on school desegregation in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., “is more about race than affirmative action,” said Parker, adding that it is unlikely the debate on either is going to go away soon.
— By Shilpa Banerji
© Copyright 2005 by DiverseEducation.com
