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.