Ooh, great question.  My work on Yootles is turning me into a libertarian 
and for the sake of consistency, if nothing else, I think I'm going to go 
with Yes on MCRI.  (I suppose a hardcore libertarian would say No -- no 
legislation concerning race at all.  But since I think anti-discrimination 
laws are important I'd prefer the simplest, fairest, most consistent form 
of such laws possible, ie, "no racial discrimination for any reason 
ever".)

But I'm torn for the same reasons you are.

Straw poll here:
   http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld/
     (Put only your name there; for discussion use email.)

--- \/	 FROM Nate Clark AT 06.10.10 21:24 (Yesterday)	 \/ ---

>
> Those of you in Michigan, what do you think about the Michigan Civil Rights 
> Initiative, to be voted on in 4 weeks?
>
> The ballot language says it will "Ban public institutions from using 
> affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or 
> individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin 
> for public employment, education or contracting purposes."
>
> In principal, I agree with it, that the color of someone's skin should not 
> give anyone special treatment. I strongly believe that people from worse 
> socio-economic situations SHOULD get preferential treatment, though, and I 
> recognize that they are, more often than not, non-caucasian.
>
> Is it conscionable to remove what I believe to be unjust forms of affirmative

> action, without immediately having another form in place?
>
> I keep thinking about a friend of mine from Argentina. Both of his parents 
> are plastic surgeons who make more money than I will ever see. He got to go 
> to UMich for free because he's hispanic. This is wrong, and the MCRI would 
> end this type of thing.
>
> But without other forms of affirmative action, it seems like the MCRI would 
> do more harm than good.
>
> ~Nate
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"