The Truth About Diversity and Discrimination, Fox Business Opinion

Affirmative Action Limits Opportunities for Asian Americans, Acton Institute

Diversity Without Affirmative Action, New York Times Debate

‘Whites Only’ Columbia Shock Scholarship, New York Post

Teaching ‘Diversity,’ Wall Street Journal

Portland Public Schools to Develop Affirmative Action Plan, Oregon Live

Latino Student Group Says Eating Tacos is Offensive to Mexicans, Daily Caller

Ask the average person if it’s okay to discriminate based on race, and you’ll get an emphatic, “No, of course not!” But ask the same person if they think universities and employers ought to achieve diversity goals by making decision – aka, discriminating – based on race, and you’re likely to get a very different response.

Why the seeming contradiction? It’s because diversity, as the dominant cultural value in our country, trumps all other values.

We live in a diversity-saturated society. Governments and educators and employers across the political spectrum boast of efforts to promote diversity. We give awards for diversity; we hold conferences on diversity; and we commission taskforces to improve diversity. We’ve even created an entire industry around teaching and monitoring diversity sensitivity.

Every day, basic American values are distorted through the lens of diversity. Equal treatment under the law suddenly validates preferential treatment for certain races. Distaste for racial discrimination suddenly becomes distaste for only politically incorrect kinds of discrimination. The individual becomes merely a color and a racial category. The colorblind vision becomes an excuse for color conscious policies. Even the idea of diversity of opinions and experience is reduced to racial bean counting.

This week the New York Times hosted a Room for Debate discussion on the question, “Can diversity survive without affirmative action?” All the contributors focused on the merits of affirmative action. I think it’s time we focus on the merits of this so-called “diversity.” Perhaps a better topic for discussion would be, “Is the kind of diversity achieved through racial preferences worth preserving?”

Being popular or politically correct doesn’t make race-based discrimination morally right. Isn’t this what the civil rights movement was all about?

Sincerely,
Jennifer Gratz
CEO

It’s been nearly 50 years since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This monumental legislation promised colorblind government in order to lead us toward a colorblind society.

The key proponents of the Civil Rights Act at the time argued that the country had a moral obligation to end government-sponsored discrimination based on race. Is that still true today?

• Last month, public educators in Wisconsin gathered for a state-wide conference that emphasized the importance of teaching students about “white privilege.” The conference provided special instruction on how to deal with students who offer resistance to being classified by race.
• This week we learned that Cal Poly University hired two new people in its admissions department tasked with boosting diversity, along with a new executive director of diversity and inclusivity. Despite major budget cuts and tuition increases, the University believed this was necessary to help reduce the “culture shock” of non-white students on campus.
• Today, we saw a report criticizing Los Angeles’ record on contracting minority-owned companies, despite a state constitutional amendment that banned preferential treatment based on race. Apparently the city hasn’t been aggressive enough in finding ways around state law!

When I hear stories like this, I’m reminded of how far we are from MLK’s hope of a colorblind society. So many of our policies, particularly in public employment and education, revolve around dividing people based on race and treating people differently because of the color of their skin.

I believe we still have a moral obligation to end government-sponsored discrimination and preferential treatment based on race. It doesn’t matter if you’re white, black, Hispanic, Asian or Native American; equal treatment under the law belongs to all people.

Join us on Facebook and let us know where you stand on this issue!

Sincerely,
Jennifer Gratz
CEO

Three important things to report:

1. On Tuesday the Tennessee House of Representatives passed legislation that bans race preferences in state government hiring! Having passed the Senate floor last week, the legislation now heads to Gov. Haslam’s desk for final approval. Read more about it here.
2. The U.S. District Court in Denver just overturned a Colorado law passed in 2009 that imposed severe burdens on private citizens who use the initiative process to get an issue on the ballot. I testified in this case last year that these restrictions were a clear violation of the First Amendment, and the Court agreed! Read more about it here.
3. This week Brad Paisley and LL Cool J released a duet about race called, “Accidental Racist.” It stirred up quite the controversy, and I think this is significant. You can read my thoughts about the song and the importance of honest conversations here.

Keep up the good fight!

Sincerely,
Jennifer Gratz
CEO

How Affirmative Action Became an Upper-Middle Class Benefit, Daily Beast

Georgia High School Students Organize First-Ever Integrated Prom, Yahoo

Schools Push a Curriculum of Propaganda, George Will

City Recruits Minority Lifeguards, Even If They Can’t Swim, Judicial Watch

Those Courageous Racists, WSJ

MSNBC’s Chris Matthew Redefines Racism, The Blaze

Another Supreme Chance to Ban Affirmative Action, Hans von Spakovsky

Not So Affirmative-Action, Daily Free Press

Is Banning Racial Preferences Unconstitutional? The Supreme Court Will Decide, Center for Individual Freedom

April 2, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Glenn Landstrom
Phone: 517-643-5514
E-mail: glandstrom@xivfoundation.org

Matthews Defines Racism as Belief that Whites Should Rule All Others
Dictionaries Disagree and Civil Rights Org Calls for Retraction

National – On the Monday edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews lambasted radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for arguing that President Obama inspires supporters to make divisive, racist comments. Matthews, instead, insisted that racism was defined as “the belief that one race – whites – should rule all others.”

Dictionaries on both sides of the aisle seem to dispute Matthews’ definition; and Jennifer Gratz, Founder and CEO of the XIV Foundation, has called on Mr. Matthews to retract this statement.

After watching the segment, Gratz remarked, “No one group has a monopoly on racism. And to suggest otherwise is a ridiculous, terrible message to broadcast to children and adults alike on national TV.”

As just one example, Gratz pointed to an incident that occurred on Monday where black activists delivered Oreo cookies to the office of Detroit’s Emergency Manager, a recent controversial appointment by Michigan Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. “April Fool’s Day or not, delivering Oreo cookies to black politicians that you happen to disagree with is a disgusting act.”

###

Jennifer Gratz challenged racial discrimination in the admissions policy at the University of Michigan and won at the U.S. Supreme Court (Gratz v. Bollinger). She spearheaded a successful constitutional amendment in Michigan (MCRI) that made race and gender preferences unconstitutional in public education, public employment, and public contracting. Jennifer is the co-founder and CEO of the XIV Foundation.

Ten years ago today, I sat and listened as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Gratz v. Bollinger case. It felt like one of life’s cruel jokes that my lawsuit would appear before our highest court on April Fool’s Day of all days.

While I ultimately won my case against race preferences at the University of Michigan, the Supreme Court ruled in a companion case that such affirmative action policies, though slightly modified, could still be used for another 25 years.

Thus the door was propped open for the continuation of government-sponsored racial discrimination in education and hiring.

This may seem scandalous to some, but I grew up being taught that everyone should be treated equally and that the whole point of the civil rights movement was to do away with the kinds of policies that treat people differently based on skin color.

And yet today, we are told that in order to treat people equally based on race, we need to treat people unequally according to their race. We are told that the principle of “diversity” is so important that it merits dividing unique individuals into cumbersome groups based on skin color, giving preferential treatment to certain favored races.

The central principle of the civil rights movement – equal treatment – has been turned on its head for cheap handouts and politically correct accommodations. This is wrong, and it’s time to let people know that it is neither racist nor unfair to speak up for equal treatment.

Please join us and let us know how you feel about this issue. We need your help to spread this message!

Sincerely,
Jennifer Gratz
CEO

On November 15, 2012, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals declared a ban on race preferences in Michigan unconstitutional. This Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the appeal supported by the XIV Foundation!

Here’s a list of just a few of the media outlets that reported on this yesterday:

• American Spectator
• Atlantic
• CNN
• College Fix
• Daily Caller
• Detroit Free Press
• Detroit News
• Salon
• SCOTUSblog
• Watchdog

This is a crucial moment in the fight for equal treatment for all people.

In 2006 Michigan voters overwhelmingly passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI or Prop 2), a constitutional amendment banning the use of race or gender preferences in public education, hiring and contracting.

The campaign was brutal. The Michigan establishment, Democrats and Republicans alike, lined up against MCRI and outspent supporters by a 5 to 1 margin. But on Election Day, when all of the votes were tallied, Michigan voters chose equality and approved MCRI in a 16-point landslide.

MCRI opponents, however, never accepted the will of the people, and the radical group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) immediately filed a lawsuit to overturn the vote. They argue that it is discrimination not to have race-based preferences. In other words, universities have to treat applicants unequally based on race in order to treat them equally according to their race.

Unfortunately, eight judges on the 6th Circuit sided with this logic over 2.1 million Michigan voters, and now BAMN is asking the Supreme Court to overturn similar initiatives in 7 other states.

The principle of equal treatment for all people is on the line. Are you ready to join me? We can’t afford to have anyone sitting on the bench in this debate!

Sincerely,
Jennifer Gratz
CEO

Racial Fairness in College Admissions, Marvin Olasky

The New Affirmative Action, Victor David Hanson

Can Honest Discussion About Race Be Inoffensive?, The Atlantic

Pathology of Race on Full-Blown Display in Detroit, Michigan Live

Yet Another Sunday NYT Op-Ed Trying to Salvage Affirmative Action, Roger Clegg

Better Colleges Failing to Lure Talented Poor, New York Times

This is a pivotal year for the issue of whether or not public institutions should be able to treat people differently because of their race. Here are the key developments:

• Eight state constitutional amendments banning race preferences in public education, hiring and contracting are in jeopardy after the 6^th Circuit declared such equal treatment unconstitutional.
• The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether it will hear this appeal, and it will soon decide an important “affirmative action” lawsuit against the University of Texas.
• Furthermore, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was recently challenged in the Supreme Court.

All this is happening with the 50^th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act just around the corner. This legislation promised to end the practice of racial discrimination and move the country toward the vision of MLK’s colorblind society.

Unfortunately, discrimination is still alive and well. Color-conscious policies are widely accepted as useful and necessary to increase diversity and level the playing field. But at what cost?

The “official” narrative on race and equality insists that society cannot be equal unless certain minorities are given preferential treatment because of their race. Inspired by this belief, well-meaning efforts have simply preserved the same old policies of discrimination, just with different beneficiaries.

Is this what a colorblind society looks like to you?

If you think these color-conscious policies have us on the wrong path, we need to hear your voice! Please share this message of equal treatment with your friends and family.

And don’t forget to join us on Facebook and Twitter!

Sincerely,

Jennifer Gratz