X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.0-r431796 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k9BJfSnw014705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:41:28 -0400 Received: from ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu (ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.144]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9BJfQDA030567; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:41:26 -0400 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 452D48E2.19928.27910 ; 11 Oct 2006 15:41:22 -0400 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9BJfJa5030524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:41:19 -0400 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k9BJfJnw014652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:41:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (dreeves Æ localhost) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id k9BJfJ1O014649; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:41:19 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: dreeves Æ boston.eecs.umich.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:41:19 -0400 (EDT) To: Nate Clark cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Daniel Reeves Subject: Re: MCRI Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 769 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"