A proposed ban on race and gender preferences in Michigan, in government hiring and public university admissions, is likely to be put before voters in 2006, despite the worst efforts of ban opponents. Detroit Free press political columnist Dawson Bell has an informative column today about a debate between two professors on the measure, in which he concludes the ban supporter outpointed his opponent, and that a number of business leaders whose companies oppose the ban publicly, may vote for it, privately. However, Dawson believes civilized debates such as these won't matter a whit, as voter views are firmly entrenched.

Drs. William Allen of Michigan State and James Sterba of Notre Dame, along with their host, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, seem to believe that a serious and civilized examination of the subject will well serve a state where the issue of banning race and gender preferences is likely to be on the ballot in 2006. Maybe. But I doubt it will make much difference in the outcome.

There is nothing wrong with civilized debate...Allen was especially effective at undermining his opponent's premises. When Sterba ended one of several appeals to the merits of diversity with a lyrical story about a white student's cultural epiphany in a mixed race classroom, Allen asked, "What is the source of this mystic force?" Racial understanding doesn't require a "Sesame Street notion that you have to see a black person standing in front of you to know that you shouldn't lynch him."

Later, when asked how he would address race absent affirmative action, Allen said he doesn't accept the obligation. When a thing is wrong -- and treating people differently based on their race is wrong -- there is no requirement to offer an alternative, he said; it is enough to stop the wrong.

Sterba's defense of affirmative action was more nuanced. At times, he didn't sound like much of a defender at all. He said he is troubled by all the ill will the practice generates, and the injustice that results when diversity goals result in, for example, limits on the number of Asian Americans that can be admitted to elite schools in California. Yet he also claimed the practical effect of affirmative action is so limited that it is a Band-Aid approach to a problem that would be much better addressed by massive new spending on quality public schools. Since that isn't politically attainable, he said, making opportunities available to disadvantaged people by using race and gender as a factor in hiring and admissions decisions is the best we can do.

Interesting rationale. We can't fix public schools - hmm, that wouldn't have anything to do with the parents of under-performing students, and teachers' unions, now would it? - so go for some half-hearted racial preferences as a band-aid on a hemmorhage. Sure, makes a lot of sense.

I wonder if an undecided slice of suburban Detroit voters, might not, as the election draws closer and debate intensifies, actually help the ban win. The suburban Seattle electorate, which still has swung Democratic in a number of national and state elections from the mid-90s to the present, nonetheless lent crucial support to Washington State's Initiative 200, to ban racial preferences in public sector employment and university admissions. Preferences just smell increasingly fishy these days, and Democrats keep them high on their agenda at considerable political risk.

TECHNORATI TAGS: MICHIGAN, RACIAL PREFERENCES

TO COMMENT: The regular "comment" feature is not in operation. E-mail comments to address under "Contact" on main page masthead, and I'll add them, here.

Tom Rekdal: Dawson Bell may well be correct in believing that debates, like the one on which he reports, will have little impact on the practice of Michigan voters.

But I have come to believe that actual passage of anti-preference initiatives, like the one we adopted in Washington, will also have little impact on the actual conduct of the administrators they seek to regulate. Public officials and university administrators are far more inventive in evading legal mandates than any initiative can anticipate. For the most part, adoption of these initiatives is purely symbolic, albeit important symbolism.

In the long run, debates like the one between Allen and Sterba are our only hope; for if the culture does not change, nothing changes.

Allen asks some worthwhile questions in this debate. Good for him.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at September 19, 2005 06:49 PM