Michigan voters earlier this month passed a state constitutional amendment banning race and gender preference in government employment practices, government contracts and public education.
Now anti-affirmative action activists have their sights on other states where bans have a chance of passing, including Oregon.
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative banned affirmative action based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin. The measure passed with 58 percent of the vote, garnering more than 2.1 million votes despite heavy opposition from government, education, civil rights, religious and business groups in the state.
The initiative made the ballot through the efforts of Jennifer Gratz, a participant in the 2003 Gratz v. Bollinger case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy was unconstitutional.
The Michigan initiative was supported financially by Ward Connerly, the chairman and founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, which has sponsored similar measures in California and Washington banning preferential treatment for people based on their race or gender.
Connerly said he is looking to sponsor similar anti-affirmative action measures in other states that have a ballot initiative process, and where there is local support for such measures, saying he has been contacted by several groups and individuals in Oregon.
Since it would be a while before a measure would appear on the Oregon ballot – if one appears at all – many groups are unsure of how it would affect the state.
Brenda Sifuentez, a field organizer for the Oregon Students of Color Coalition, which supports affirmative action programs for race, gender and disability, said the group does not take stances on ballot measures but that it would work to educate students on what the passage of such a measure would potentially mean.
Penelope Daugherty, affirmative action director for the University, said the University is tied as a federal contractor to Executive Order 11246, which provides the legal foundation for affirmative action in employment.
The California ban, for example, exempted federal contractors from the ban so they could meet their obligation to the order, so the University would probably keep its hiring practices, she said.
“We would be one of those federal contractors whose adherence with that executive order, in all likelihood, would be carved out as an exemption that is banned from considering gender or race in connection with employment,” Daugherty said.
The effect of such a measure on admissions to Oregon universities also remains unclear.
Connerly, a former member of the California Board of Regents, said the bans have improved the college retention and graduation rates of minority students. After the California ban passed, the percentage of black and Hispanic students attending top-tier universities in the state, such as UC Berkeley, declined, but it has risen at other universities in California where they were more able to compete, he said.
As a result, the retention and graduation rates for those students has risen to similar levels for white and Asian students, whereas before they were much lower, he said.
“It really doesn’t matter which college you go to, but we put too much emphasis on what college people attended,” Connerly said. “The question is whether it’s better to have students going to universities that are academically competitive, or is it better to let them go where they are academically competitive. I think it’s the latter.”
Connerly said he is extremely optimistic that similar measures would pass in other states, mostly because affirmative action programs have been implemented by the government and are not put up to a vote before the people.
He also believes that Americans would vote against programs that treat people differently based on their race or gender.
“The instinct to be fair and treat people equally has always resided in our culture,” Connerly said. “When faced with the question of whether people should be treated differently or be given preferential treatment, the overwhelming majority of Americans say no.”
Contact the city, state politics reporter at [email protected]