“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. 1:27
The Bible says that we are all created in God’s image and likeness. What this says to me is that we are all equal in God’s eyes and more than that, if we aspire to grow closer to Him, we must strive to see this image of God reflected in everyone.
From a political point of view, seeing God reflected in everyone obligates us to make sure that we provide everyone equal access to the resources and opportunities that our society has to offer. Our Declaration of Independence echoes this concept in the phrase “all men are created equal”. It is the foundation of much of our legal system as well.
Last month, a majority of the people in Michigan voted to make it illegal to offer any preferential treatment based on race or gender. Unless that was motivated purely by self-interest, it must signal that a majority of the voters in Michigan believe that we have finally become a race and gender-neutral society and no longer need these protections.
I certainly hope so because that will put us well ahead of the rest of the country.
One indication that the rest of the country hasn’t yet reached race and gender neutrality is the nature of the discussions surrounding two potential democratic presidential candidates. The two I’m thinking of are Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.
Hillary Clinton already has a history in the Whitehouse that makes her a controversial figure in the minds of some voters. Those who have followed her record in the Senate, however, describe her as a hard working centrist. That description is very much at odds with the leftist radical image she had during her husband’s Presidency. None of that, however, is the first topic of discussion when her potential candidacy comes up. The primary question is whether or not the country is ready for female president.
Barak Obama has burst upon the scene as a breathe of fresh air. He is also a centrist. Contrary to recent political theory, his message speaks of union rather than division. He looks to lead from our common interests rather than our differences. He embraces difference as our strength rather than our weakness. He is young and doesn’t have much experience in public office. Some say that is an advantage. Some say that it is a disadvantage. But that’s not what people are talking about. The primary question is whether or not the country will vote for African-American presidential candidate.
I remember when the question was whether or not the country was ready for a Roman-Catholic president. Clearly John Kennedy put that issue to rest. Perhaps the issues of gender and race in the oval office won’t be resolved until a woman and/or an African American is actually elected. But I submit that until that happens, we have not finally defeated the bias which affirmative action was created to offset.
“Last month, a majority of the people in Michigan voted to make it illegal to offer any preferential treatment based on race or gender.”
I believe that only applies to institutions funded by taxes, and that individuals and private organizations can still offer assistance if they wish, although I haven’t read the law, so I may be wrong.
You make vaild points about our biased world; however, I voted to end affirmative action only because there are so many other laws that protect minorities against discrimination and let’s face it, the current affirmative action plan has a lot of reverse discrimination that is created. Statistics show that soon, the white male will be the minority in the work place.
Over the years, many people have been passed over for promotions and university opportunities because there was a minority person bidding for the same position. In many cases, the minority person wasn’t the most qualified for the job and didn’t have the best GPA. I think that businesses across the US have suffered because they didn’t always hire the best candidate or person for the job; instead, they hired the person who met their “quota”. I can tell you from first hand experience that the outcome is not always pleasant for either side. The company invests thousands of dollars and the new hire struggles to be successful. In the end, if the employee is let go, it’s evident that the company should have hired the best candidate – regardless of gender, religion, sexual preference, race or color. All successful companies know that now.
I always ask people who oppose ending affirmative action to think about this scenario: If you or a love one had to have a life saving operation, who would you want to perform the surgery – a person who had “OK” grades and gained entrance into college because of their gender or race or the person who was white and earned straight “A”s all through school?
I’d want the latter and if that makes me biased or discriminatory, then by definition I guess I am; however, in my heart, I know I am not.
Mary,
Thanks for your thoughts and observations.
The constitutional amendment that was passed in Michigan basically trumps all other state law regarding affirmative action. So at least in Michigan, affirmative action of any sort at public institutions and in government contracting is illegal.
If affirmative action were such a burden to business and higher education, you would think that those institutions would have supported the amendment. But both business, our state colleges, both candidates for governor, and most of the newspapers in the state including this one came out strongly in opposition to the amendment. That’s because they understand that education is our most important investment we can make in the future. A college education has also proven to be the single most effective method to combat poverty. Business leaders understand that fewer college graduates will slow economic growth, increase the cost of dependence, and discourage business investment.
I also have to take exception to your scenario. Whether it is medical science, school teaching, or auto mechanics; everyone always wants the best most qualified resources they can find regardless of race or gender. In the absence of affirmative action, this state will see not only fewer minorities, but fewer women physicians. That’s because this amendment also eliminates funding to overcome the cultural bias women face in choosing a technical or scientific career.
What is disturbing about your example is the underlying suggestion that those who benefit from affirmative action are somehow less capable or intelligent than those who don’t. Smart kids who are motivated AND get the opportunity are going to do well regardless of their race or gender. The whole issue is that our society isn’t giving poor kids the same opportunity to go to college that it gives everyone else. That’s because many poor kids go to bad public schools which fail to prepare them to compete for college admissions.
What do you think we should do about that?
To my mind, the whole question boils down to loving your neighbor as yourself. There is clearly a need because our poorest schools are so much worse than our best schools, and women are seriously under represented in the math and science focused occupations.
Jesus told a great story about this in Luke 10:30-37 that we all know as the parable of the Good Samaritan. Who do you want to be, one of two righteous fellows who ignored the needs of the injured man, or the Samaritan who altered his course and paid out of his own pocket in order to help a stranger in need?
Jeff
ML make a great point regarding the passing of Proposal 2 in that it only applies to public institutions and government contacting.
I voted against it because, like it or not, the playing field is not level. Although statistic’s, as Mary pointed out, may show white males becoming a minority in the future, they will still be the minority with the hiring power.
I think the biggest reason the conversation at this stage has been, “is the country ready” for a black or female president may not be an inditment on our countries movment to equality but based on each parties political and economic expedience. Meaning, does the democratic party find this person electable – in spite of not because of thier race / gender or other issues. In the case of Sen. Clinton; obviously there are known negatives. With regard’s to Sen Obama he seem extremly impressive in his first 24 months in the senate. But, we are only talking about 24 months and we are talking about a jr. senator that until January has been in the minority party. Maybe the trepidation is that with Sen. Clinton’s negatives and Sen. Obama’s unknown’s that neither canidates will seem as real strong after the vetting process of a primary election. Either way – I don’t think the questions being raised about either Sen. are much different than the questions that were raised about Gen. Powell or Sec. Rice.
I hope that we have ended the reasons for affirmative action prior to the election of a female or black president. I hope that when that day occurs they are elected in spite of being a woman or a minority as I fear that if this is not the case there will be a segment of our community that will think they were elected “because” of there status and not “in spite” of it. This would truely be a tragedy.
By the way – very thought provoking blog. Good luck.
Will,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I share your hope that we are moving toward a race and gender neutral society.
From a purely political (rather than spiritual) view, I think that the first female candidate for President is going to have some very interesting unknowns. For example, how is the opposing candidate going to raise the whole gender issue without being viewed as sexist? Knowing that this weakness and uncertainty exists in the minds of her opposition, wouldn’t a politically savvy female candidate take the offensive on that topic and attempt to position her opponent and his party as reactionary and sexist on virtually every issue?
If I were advising Hillary Clinton, for example, I would encourage her to try to make the whole election about sexual bias and conservative extremism. That gives her the greatest chance to win a disproportionate share of the female vote because virtually every adult woman at one point or another has experienced some form of sexual harrasment or bias. Given the viceral reaction that many conservatives have to Ms. Clinton, it shouldn’t be hard to do. She would only have retain all those who voted for Gore or Kerry and take about 5% of the female voters who voted for George Bush to defeat whomever the Republicans put up.
If it becomes a referrendum on whether or not a woman could be President, rather than whether or not this is the right woman, I think she would win because I believe the country IS ready for a female president.
Whether or not she is the best person to lead the country at this point is a different question.
What do you think?
Jeff
Will wrote:
“…the playing field is not level.”
Of course it’s not. It never has been and cannot ever be, because everyone is unique. No amount of legislation will ever make the playing field level.
The legislation that we’re talking about removed both mandatory and voluntary affirmative action. It is, in effect, saying that the government of Michigan will not take the inequities of race or gender into account in ANY way.
Yet the inequities are well documented and I don’t think that anyone disputes the data.
High schools with a majority of white kids graduate 80% of their kids. Those are the ones that get a chance to go to college. High schools with a majority of African American kids graduate 55% of their kids. The rest don’t get to go to college. Does that mean that African American kids aren’t as smart or motivated as white kids? I don’t think so. It just means that too many African American kids live in poor neighborhoods with poor high schools. As a result of this amendment, fewer will now be admitted to the best schools in the state.
Only 9% of American engineers are women and only 20% of the engineering degrees in the US are awarded to women. This is not the case in other countries. So there is something in our educational system and/or our culture which discourages women from pursuing technical degrees when our country desperately needs more engineers. What are we doing about it? In Michigan, we’ve made it unconstitutional to fund programs which encourage bright middle school and high school girls to take the math and science courses they need to get into a good engineering college.
This isn’t about making the playing field level. It is about recognizing that blatant inequities harm us all. This isn’t a zero sum game and too many short sighted people approach it as such. This is about making the pie bigger so that everyone has a slice. The way we do that is by making sure that every citizen has an opportunity to maximize their contribution to society. Education is the key, but we in Michigan have just re-locked the doors for a bunch of our citizens.
Jeff