Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Why women should support Proposition 107
FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/38.html
FACT: GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
FACT: SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.
"I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.
Source:
http://http//www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html
IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
“But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html
And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)
Blog for Arizona writer resorts to claiming Yes on Proposition 107 said something else since they're losing the argument
The left wing Blog for Arizona/Reappropriate has a post claiming that "Yes on 107 wouldn't mind if battered women's shelters and breast cancer screenings closed their doors." How does the author come to this bizarre conclusion? We pointed out that those services will NOT have to close their doors if Prop. 107 passes, it is a scare tactic used by the left in order to frighten people from voting for Prop. 107. Not a single domestic violence shelter or breast cancer screening service has had to close its doors since this initiative passed in four other states, beginning back in 1996 in California.
The author moans about how terrible it would be if men were allowed to use domestic violence shelter services too. Why? She doesn't provide a single example of a bad incident involving a man who used a domestic violence shelter service, she just implies that the abusers of women who are victimized would get in (since they're not victims, that's not what would happen - only real male victims would be permitted).
Her arguments essentially come down to this analogy: Vote No on 107 otherwise there *could possibly be a nuclear war.* Even though there hasn't been any nuclear wars since this initiative passed in four other states, it is still a remote possibility. Therefore, you must be in favor of these dire consequences if you vote for Prop. 107.
The author ridicules us for refuting two of her articles about Prop. 107 within 24 hours, saying we should be spending more time getting out the vote. Really? How did she become such an elections expert? A big part of campaigns is social media, and when you're down to a day before the election, it is crucial to refute the barrage of articles that suddenly appear by the opposition, so voters doing google searches on how to vote will find your side of the debate. We still have plenty of workers getting out the vote.
The author moans about how terrible it would be if men were allowed to use domestic violence shelter services too. Why? She doesn't provide a single example of a bad incident involving a man who used a domestic violence shelter service, she just implies that the abusers of women who are victimized would get in (since they're not victims, that's not what would happen - only real male victims would be permitted).
Her arguments essentially come down to this analogy: Vote No on 107 otherwise there *could possibly be a nuclear war.* Even though there hasn't been any nuclear wars since this initiative passed in four other states, it is still a remote possibility. Therefore, you must be in favor of these dire consequences if you vote for Prop. 107.
The author ridicules us for refuting two of her articles about Prop. 107 within 24 hours, saying we should be spending more time getting out the vote. Really? How did she become such an elections expert? A big part of campaigns is social media, and when you're down to a day before the election, it is crucial to refute the barrage of articles that suddenly appear by the opposition, so voters doing google searches on how to vote will find your side of the debate. We still have plenty of workers getting out the vote.
Evidence the UofA considers race in admissions; plus myths propagated by Arizona Students Association
From Desert Lamp, an independent UA newspaper
Proposition 107, False Facts, and More Reasons to Vote Yes
On her blog, ASA Chair Elma Delic gives an explanation for the organization’s endorsement of a “No” vote on Proposition 107. She does so in the position of ASA Chair, on behalf of the supposedly non-partisan organization, with no greater explanation of how the organization claims to have garnered student opinion on this matter than a vague allusion to “talking to organizations” and some policy analysis from the ASA Government Affairs Director. While Ms. Delic is undoubtedly earnest in her explanation, a few of her points are factually wrong, and a few more advocate poor policy decisions that further engender state-mandated racism. This post is yet more evidence of ASA’s decidedly partisan consideration of ballot issues, and gives students a glimpse at the kind of rhetoric espoused by an organization that claims to be the strongest voice for students to the Arizona legislature.
Delic writes:
This constitutional amendment, if passed, has a great potential for harm to institutions of higher education. Some of the initiative’s supporters are referring to Prop. 107 as an “anti-affirmative action” amendment. However, this is very misleading because Arizona’s universities do not use quotas, or take into account race or sex during the admittance process. This means that every student that is enrolled at a university got here based on their merit.(Emphasis mine)
The universities may not call then quotas, but they most certainly do consider race in admissions. This from the OIRPS [pdf] (highlighting added):
From this document, we see clearly that race and ethnicity are indeed considered in admissions decisions, and are in fact given the same weight as standardized test scores and admissions essays. Further, the universities have repeatedly mentionedthat increasing diversity is a priority; barring magic, the only way for the relative percentage of a given ethnic group to increase would be to, you know, consider ethnicity when admitting applicants. This study[pdf] from the Center for Equal Opportunity revealed The James E Rogers College of Law found that rejected non-BHNA applicants had higher LSAT scores and GPAs than accepted BHNAs – further belying the idea that race isn’t taken into account. Even setting aside the merits of the idea that universities should descriminate for race, to say that theydon’t is flatly erroneous.
Delic continues, “In fact, after a similar proposition passed in California (Proposition 209) they saw a decrease in enrollment by both Black and Latino students.” This also proves false: though enrollment decreased the year directly after the measure passed, enrollment has increased for all recorded ethnic groups, in the case of Hispanic enrollment by nearly 10%. The following increases took place with no state-mandated race-based preferences:
African American 1996: 4% (1,628) 2010: 4.2% (2,624)
Latino 1996: 15.4% (5,744) 2010: 23% (14,081)
Asians 1996: 29.8% (11,085) 2010: 37.5% (22,877)
Native Americans 1996: 0.9% (360) 2010: 0.8% (531)
Whites 1996: 44% (16,465) 2010: 34% (20,807)
Delic also presents, “Ward Connerly, the creator of this initiative, is a former University of California Regent. He is also the founder and leader of the American Civil Rights Institute which pays him millions of dollars annually to pass anti-equal opportunity legislation across the country.” Her personal claims about Mr. Connerly are un-linked and unsubstantiated, but excepting the factuality of this claim, the example is not unlike the way in which ASA gets hundreds of thousands of student dollars to espouse partisan interests (such as this one) in students’ name, with little to no accountability on what students actually care about.
The endorsement continues, “For example, in Michigan the Supreme Court found that the Michigan “Civil Rights Initiative” had engaged in system voter fraud, however, it remained on the ballot because it did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” This is also incorrect: The Sixth Circuit Court (of the federal judiciary) denied to issue an injunction to remove the proposition from the ballot, because the election had already taken place. The Supreme Court denied to hear the appeal for alternative relief (i.e. non-enforcement of the measure) without comment.
Delic next presents that, “Connerly tried to get his initiative on the Arizona ballot in 2008 (Prop. 104) but failed because he could not get enough legitimate signatures.” This is one version of what occurred: Prop. 104 failed to get on the ballot because Michael Slugocki and Kathleen Templin — both board members of ASA at the time — filed a formal complaint against the signatures. They filed this suit after ASA had voted to oppose the measure — muddying the motives considerably. Neither Templin nor Slugocki listed their affiliation with ASA on the formal complaint.
Delic continues:
The language in the proposition and title deceive the voter by calling it the “Arizona Civil Rights Amendment” and stating that it will end discriminatory practices by eliminating state funding to these practices. The amendment does not provide civil rights nor does it end discrimination –it removes the public’s ability to support individuals who need support, further disempowering already underprivileged groups.
Nowhere in the post appears a link to the easily-accessible ballot information, not is the official ballot language printed, even in excerpt. While it may indeed be confusing to consider how confusing a passage is in abstraction, having it to read does make that a bit easier. The official ballot language:
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:
1. Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended by adding section 36 as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
SECTION 36. A. THIS STATE SHALL NOT GRANT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP ON THE BASIS OF RACE, SEX, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE OPERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC EDUCATION OR PUBLIC CONTRACTING.
1. PROHIBIT BONA FIDE QUALIFICATIONS BASED ON SEX THAT ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC EDUCATION OR PUBLIC CONTRACTING.
2. PROHIBIT ACTION THAT MUST BE TAKEN TO ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY FEDERAL PROGRAM, IF INELIGIBILITY WOULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF FEDERAL MONIES TO THIS STATE.
3. INVALIDATE ANY COURT ORDER OR CONSENT DECREE THAT IS IN FORCE AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.
C. THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION ARE THE SAME, REGARDLESS OF THE INJURED PARTY’S RACE, SEX, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS ARE OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF THE EXISTING ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAWS OF THIS STATE.
F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “STATE” INCLUDES THIS STATE, A CITY, TOWN OR COUNTY, A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, INCLUDING THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY AND NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY, A COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, A SCHOOL DISTRICT, A SPECIAL DISTRICT OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION IN THIS STATE.
2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.
The post continues to present, in super-scary italics, “Student groups that represent certain demographics could lose public funding. Entire departments in the universities could be shut down.” We here at the Lamp are willing to bet ASA a substantial amount of money that this will not happen (no, seriously — hit us up!). This law only dictates that programs be open to persons of all race/ethnicity/gender/etc, not that programs can’t study or focus upon one group. The list of “threatened programs” included here are also allowed under the law, as we see here. One needs only to look at states in which measure like have already passed similar measures to see that public programs similar to the ones listed still exist.
The post concludes with, “ASA encourages all students to educate themselves before going to the polls in November or submitting their early ballot.” On this point, the Lamp agrees — but we encourage said education to include empirical evidence, reputable links, and facts that feature legitimate citations.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Prop. 107 opposition trots out false argument that Prop. 107 will eliminate domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening
First of all, the language only bans government preferences in hiring, contracting and higher education. Domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening programs do not fall within those areas.
Secondly, any program in risk of being eliminated just has to open its services up to men.
The article relies upon two lawsuits in California where some men's rights activists filed complaints against domestic violence shelters that only offered services to women. Both complainants lost, and there was never any finding by the courts that California's equivalent Prop. 209 had endangered them. Not very compelling evidence that these services will be in jeopardy in Arizona.
Even IF there were lawsuits against women-only domestic violence shelters in Arizona, and IF they were successful, all the shelters would need to do would be to admit men like other domestic violence shelters.
Same goes for breast cancer screening programs, and those would probably have even more likelihood of being permitted to remain as women-only, since they likely constitute a bona fide sex difference between men and women.
Would it be unfortunate if some men's rights groups filed lawsuits to attempt to stop these kinds of services from operating? It might not even cost taxpayers any money, since a judge could choose to require the men's groups when they inevitably lose to pay costs and fees, based on them losing in the past in California. The men's groups may file lawsuits like this anyway, with or without Prop. 107 being in existence, citing other parts of the Constitution, as they did in the California lawsuits.
This is just another Chicken Little "sky is falling" attempt to come up with the absolute worst possible case scenario, which isn't going to happen based on prior history in states where this initiative has passed.
Yes on 107 election night party at the Hyatt - stop by
Misleading Prop. 107 opposition signs claim they help women - but they don't tell you how affirmative action is hurting women
MYTH: WOMEN ARE NOT HARMED BY RACE PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/38.html
FACT: GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
FACT: SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.
"I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.
Source:
http://http//www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html
IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
“But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html
And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)
from
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)