E P.-ED Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - The Michigan Da
Of races and race DeVos: Cut taxesabring jobs now
ily - 5A
The chairs of the College Democrats and College
Republicans discuss Michigan's gubernatorial
race, and other students explain their views on
Proposal 2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.
Granhoim: A race to the top
By JAMIE RUTH
When I joined 26 College Democrats going door-
to-door in the Upper Peninsula during fall study
break, one thing became abundantly clear: The
negative campaign ads filling the airwaves do little
to inform voters of the crucial choice they face at the
ballot box on Nov.7.
Michigan's gubernatorial race presents us with an
opportunity to weigh in on one of the most pressing
issues facing our generation
Will we secure our future
by submitting to the race-
to-the-bottom, cling-,
to-the-past mentality
embraced by Gov
Jennifer Gran-'
holm's oppo-
nent? Or will
we cast our
ballots for
a governor
with the
long-term
vision - and
extensive plan -
to thrive in a race
to the top?
The negative ad
wars could lead some to
believe that this election
involves little more than a
choice between the lesser of
two subpar candidates.
This could not be fur-
ther from the truth.
I am proud of
what Granholm
has accomplished
for Michigan in
her past four years
as governor. She
has triumphed over
seemingly insur-
mountable obstacles;
and put Michigan back
on track to hold its
rightful place as an eco-
nomic powerhouse and
incubator of progressive
policies.
She has accomplished
all this while eliminating the
$4-billion deficit left behind by
Michigan's previous DeVos-esque
governor, John Engler. Now, she is
the only candidate with the inten-
tion - and the plan - to close the
$2-billion budgetary shortfall left by the pending
repeal of the Single Business Tax.
Meanwhile, Granholm's $3.8-billion "Jobs Today,
Jobs Tomorrow" program has created and retained
130,000 jobs in Michigan.
She has accomplished this not through blanket
tax breaks to any and all businesses, but through
incentives targeted at businesses that will generate
sustainable jobs and investment in Michigan. She
has literally gone halfway around the world (twice,
to Japan), bringing thousands of jobs to Michigan.
Michigan will never be able to compete with
developing countries like China and Mexico on
wages and taxes in a race to the bottom - nor
should we. Granholm knows this better than anyone,
and she is investing $2 billion as part of her "Jobs
Today, Jobs Tomorrow" plan. The 21st Century Jobs
Fund has already attracted dozens of companies
creating jobs in emerging sectors like biotechnol-
ogy and renewable energy, and it will revolutionize
Michigan's economy much as the auto industry did a
century ago.
To compete in
a race to the top,
Michigan must
make higher
education more
affordable, and
Granholm is
j'the only can-
didate with a
specific plan
to double the
number of
college grad-
uates in the
state. Michi-
gan has some of
the finest public
universities in the
country, and Granholm's
$4,000 scholarship program
will open up more educational
opportunities to Michigan resi-
dents and make Michigan more
competitive on a global level.
But being competitive in the
global market is about more than
just education. Until we lower the
roughly $1,500 health care bill
that goes into every American-
made car, Michigan automakers
will continue to fall further behind.
That's why Granholm is committed
to following the lead of other devel-
oped nations by providing universal
health care for Michigan residents. She
has pursued this notijust as a moral impera-
tive but also as an essential ingredient of any
globally competitive economy.
Granholm also knows that Michigan will not
be a beacon of any form of progress if we slip
back on key social issues while trying to maintain
old-fashioned social norms. While her opponent
panders to religious extremists, remarking last week
that he'd be "thrilled" if Roe v. Wade was overturned,
Granholm will never shy away from her belief in a
woman's right to choose. Nor will she tolerate theo-
crats (and Republican legislators) obstructing life-
saving stem-cell research in Michigan.
As the debates have shown, this gubernatorial race
is a face-off between radically different visions for
our future. Granholm's accomplishments restored
dignity to the state by shifting us from powerless
participation in a race to the bottom to proactive
progress in a race to the top. Re-elect Granholm on
Nov. 7, and she will continue to do so.
Ruth is an LSA senior and chair ofthe
campus chapter of the College Democrats.
BY RoB ScOTT
There's a place you might like to familiarize your-
self with during your four years at the University:
3655 South State Street, the location of Ann Arbor's
U Haul. For 47 percent of you, it will be your first stop
after receiving your diploma. Facts like this are not
talking points, they are not subject to "fuzzy math,"
and they cannot be spun in campaign commercials.
These are the realities of the state's economy for us
and for everyone in Michigan.
Dick DeVos has toured this state
extensively and spoken with
thousands of Michiganders
to understand the real-
ity of this economy for
them. The solutions
he offers are not
designed to sup-
plement a cam-
paign slogan or
create the image
of action; they
are necessary to
solve Michigan's
problems. His plan
recognizes the need
not for jobs today or
jobs tomorrow, but
instead for change
now. No governor has s
ever created a single
wealth-producing job. d
Governors employ people
out of the pockets of you
the taxpayer. It is an
economy that creates
jobs for a state.
Dick DeVos's 4
plan for Michigan's
economic tr-
around recognizes 4"
the need for a tax3
and regulatory
structure that
makes Michigan
stand out from '
the crowd. In the
increasing competi-
tion of the global mar
ket place, being among
the best is not good
enough - it is the leaders
that thrive. Reversing Gov
Jennifer Granholm's anti-
business government mentality
is essential to encouraging new
growth and promoting up-and-
coming small businesses in Michi
gan.
The most obviously needed
reform is the repeal of the Single
Business Tax. This job-killing tax,
which falls primarily on small business
owners, increases taxes when an employer "
increases wages or adds healthcare cover-"
age. Clearly, this is not a policy friendly to
employers who care about the well-being of
their employees or expanding their small
businesses. Employers also have to pay the
SBT regardless of whether or not they turn iLUSTRAT
a profit - harming entrepreneurial young BY J
companies that may not yet be profitable.
A second major tax, one that Granholm patheti-
cally defends, is the Personal Property Tax. This tax
on the commercial goods and property of Michigan's
businesses encourages companies to maintain older,
less-valuable equipment in Michigan and actually
penalizes businesses for investing in newer, cutting-
edge equipment by increasing their tax liability.
Growing businesses in need of modern equipment
clearly have an incentive to look to other states that
encourage and support their growth as long as this
tax exists in Michigan.
Granholm has had four years to change Michi-
gan's economy and make this state more competi-
tive. Instead, she has chosen to focus on government
spending as a means to produce jobs. The results have
been clear - the country's worst state economy and
one job lost every 20 minutes since she took office. As
a failing leader,Granholm has blamed the administra-
tion in Washington for her disastrous job
losses and has ignored the fact
that Michigan is in the midst
of a single-state recession.
Dick DeVos has taken
the time to under-
stand the prob-
lems Michigan's
workers and
employers
face, and he
offers com-
prehensive
solutions to
address them.
Justas neces-
sary as DeVos's
plan to provide a
competitive tax
structure is the
need to maintain
an educated, tal-
ented workforce
that puts Michi-
gan ahead of its com-
petition. Granholm's
failed promises
to preserve
reasonable
tuition in the
state have
taken a toll
'5" ,. directly on
4 'the pockets
of Michigan
families and
on the dreams
of Michigan-
ders who can't
afford the soaring
rates at the state's pub-
lic universities. Tuition
increases of almost twice
the national average serve
as an example of Granholm's
failure to protect Michigan's
future. Instead of promising
a $4,000 taxpayer-supported
credit for education, Gran-
holm should first explain how
she intends to adequately fund
higher education to curb these
skyrocketing tuition costs. DeVos
recognizes the importance of main-
taining affordable education through
reasonable tuition.
Michigan is in need of a new
direction and a new approach to
improving our state. DeVos has prom-
ised a new attitude in Lansing that
ONS will foster growth and opportunity for
ACK DOEH RING Michigan's future. His experience and
success as a businessman in this state,
coupled with his genuine concern for Michigan's
future, are exactly the type of stewardship we need
to lead Michigan toward a vibrant, growing economy
again. I hope that like me, you'll choose to stand up
and support this change on Nov.7.
Scott is an LSA senior and chair of the
campus chapter of the College Republicans.
Support the underdog
Who we know and who we don't
BY RYAN FANTUZZI, BRYAN KELLY
AND DAN SHUSTER
In 1964, Sen. Hubert Humphrey said of the
1964 Civil Rights Act that "if (one) can find
in Title VII ... any language which provides
that an employer will have to hire on the basis
of percentage or quota related to color, race,
religion or national origin, I will start eating
the pages one after another, because it is not
in there." From then on, he must have had a
lifetime supply of fiber.
Humphrey was ahead of his time in trying to
preempt the use of racial quotas - after passage
of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission mandated that all hir-
ing by employers must proportionally match the
percentage of minorities in the general popula-
tion. Unlawful racial preferences had begun.
Now, 40 years later, the people of Michigan
have the opportunity to reaffirm the true pur-
pose of the Civil Rights Act and outlaw discrim-
ination in the state. A yes vote for the Michigan
Civil Rights Initiative, or Proposal 2, will ban
the use of racial and gender preferences in the
areas of public contracting, public employment
and public education. We are fighting for this
initiative because instead of achieving equality
for every race and gender, the use of racial and
gender preferences fails miserably.
Consider the example of a female black high
school student from Bloomfield Hills, who
comes from a middle-to upper-class family,
and who will have no trouble footing the bill for
the University if she decides to matriculate. By
marking the box labeled "African-American"
she automatically receives an unequal amount
of consideration, though that consideration was
intended to counteract privilege in the status
quo. That attempt here has failed.
Now consider a poor white male from
Macomb County. His parents are divorced. He
lives with his working mother, who has little
time to spend raising her children. If he has even
the nerve to apply to the University, he will be
lumped in with the rest of the "white Michigan
males," if he doesn't try manipulating the system
by lying. The attempt to counteract privilege has
failed again. No playing field has been leveled.
No past racial wrongs have been rectified.
The problem with racial and gender prefer-
ences is that they group all members of the
underrepresented into a whole, instead of evalu-
ating the individual. Not all women lack oppor-
tunity. Not all minorities lack opportunity. But
it is unanimously understood that those from a
lower social class lack opportunity.
A yes vote for Proposal 2 does not equate to
trying to outlaw all forms of affirmative action
- and it certainly does not affect breast cancer
screening, domestic violence centers or outreach
programs to inner cities, though our opponents
will have you believe this is so. As a matter
of fact, these programs, though challenged in
California, where Proposition 209 had outlawed
racial preference in 1996, were upheld as consti-
tutional; the challenges to them were immedi-
ately thrown out of court. Remember: Anyone
can sue anyone for anything. It does not make
the suit legally relevant. This was made abun-
dantly clear in California.
In a post-MCRI world,affirmative action pro-
grams that reward lower socioeconomic classes
are still constitutional. Not only are they legal
- they are smart policy, and they doa far better
job of striking at privilege than racial or gender
preferences ever can or will.
If the University is to truly achieve a sem-
blance of a "diverse" student body without eval-
uating individuals on their race or gender, and
without breaking the law, it will have to rely on
a policy of socioeconomic affirmative action if
and when Proposal 2 passes. Thus will privilege
in the status quo finally be challenged.
Consider that in California, where a prop-
osition similar to MCRI passed and racial
preferences were no more, the state finally
began outreach programs that improved
minority education, even at the elementary
level. The problem with unequal education
was finally, successfully addressed. A world
after racial and gender preferences is one that
addresses the deep wounds of racial inequal-
ity, instead of papering over them with pref-
erence. Supporters of MCRI are believers in
this world. A yes vote means you are too.
Fantuzzi is an LSA junior and Shuster is
a graduate student in the School of Public
Health. Both are Washtenaw County MCRI
co-chairs, and Shuster is an MSA Rackham
representative. Kelly is an LSA junior.
BY KURT CHRISTENSEN
I have to admit that I had a hard
time deciding how to vote on the
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, but
the proposal seemed too important
to mugwump on. I've decided to
outline what went through my head
in the hopes that it will help some of
you think the issue through.
I admire the thinking behind
MCRI - the argument that pro-
grams that differentiate along gender
and cultural lines run counter to the
ideal of being blind to such factors. I
happen to agree with this reasoning,
and I think such programs stigmatize
entire populations they're intended
to help, not just the individual bene-
ficiaries themselves. If I understand
correctly, the instances where race,
ethnicity and gender actually affect
an admission decision are rare. Is it
worth compromising the image of
whole groups for the sake of a small
set of students who actually ben-
efit? I have had instances in my own
life where I have benefited from a
diversity initiative, and I'd be lying
if I said I didn't feel deflated once I
found out I had been given prefer-
ence for something that has nothing
to do with my abilities.
But I would argue that the ben-
efits of these proactive diversity
programs do -outweigh their harms.
Ability is only one of many fac-
tors that determine success in life.
Countless pieces come together to
affect the course of our lives -
family obligations, health, wealth.
Social networks play a particularly
strong role. "It's not what you know
but who you know," as the saying
goes, and the older I get, the more
true I find the phrase to be. We need
to strive to achieve some balance
among those "who know." And it
seems to me the best way to do that
is through an educational system
that strives for diversity in its stu-
dent body.
I don't think we want to legislate
diversity directly into the work-
force. Private businesses, in par-
ticular, thrive or die based on the
quality of their employees, and I
tend to believe the best businesses
hire the best people regardless of
whether they're black, brown, white
or green. The question, then, is how
to achieve diversity in the body of
qualified job applicants. Therein is
the role of the University.
I'm sure some of you are think-
ing: "But if you admit that education
leads to jobs, it's not fair to engineer
diversity in the student body at the
expense of more 'qualified' appli-
cants." Perhaps, but I've never liked
how MCRI supporters have tried
to monopolize the word "fair." Is it
fair to disregard stark inequalities in
wealth and health? Is it fair to ignore
how a history of racism and sexism
evolved into our current situation?
And then the tougher question:
What does all this have to do with
race, ethnicity and gender anyway?
Why not distinguish by economic
need, as it may be a better proxy for
opportunity? Because like it or not,
we distinguish according to physical
differences consciously or uncon-
sciously - and these translate into
economic differences. Let me relate
a little story.
Six months into my first job
after completing my bachelor of
arts degree, I had my first and only
blow-up. First, a vendor in the lobby
called me Hal. Shortly afterward,
the chief financial officer called me
Hal. I finally lost my temper when
the president came into my office
and addressed me as Hal.
The problem is that my name
is Kurt. My friend Hal started at
the same time as me, and appar-
ently my mixed Chinese-European
heritage was enough to make me
indistinguishable from wholly Chi-
nese-American Hal. Events like this
had- occurred during the entire six
months I'd been with the company,
and that very day, I'd considered
talking the issue over with my boss.
The situation improved for me
after Hal was fired from the compa-
ny. Although I still wonder if some
of Hal's goofs were attributed to me,
I did get promoted and eventually
got one of those cushy windowed
offices with a big faux-wooden
desk. I can't imagine that the com-
pany was racist in the usual sense of
the word. The equation for success
there was simple - make money
and you'll get promoted. I highly
doubt that the vendor, the CFO or
the company president ever looked
at me as anything but a moneymak-
ing tool, although that vendor didn't
make much money from me after
that day.
But the unconscious way race
played into their inability to dis-
tinguish me from Hal, among
other things, did affect the way I
approached the job. And I hardly
think I'm alone in this situation. It
isn't just "isms" that we're trying
to combat. We're trying to correct
entire systems by taking a far-sight-
ed view of education.
My mixed heritage has worked
in my favor as much as against, so
don't weep for me. I hope my little
monologue and story conveys why
it's insufficient to consider questions
of diversity as a matter of "fairness"
or as a matter of economics, though.
I appreciate the thoughtful letters
by Prof. Carl Cohen and state Rep.
Leon Drolet (R-Macomb Township)
and others in support of MCRI, but I
feel that the University is in a unique
position to address social inequali-
ties and it can only do so if MCRI is
defeated. For this reason, I am vot-
ing against Proposal 2 on Nov. 7.
Christensen is a Rackham student.