Jeff Smith's July Recoil column has been posted in the commentary section of the site. In it, Jeff explores the framing of the affirmative action debate in Michigan:
These same people who are pushing this ballot issue have hijacked the conversation about the issue. They say that it is time that we stop having "racial preferences for Blacks and other minorities." Racial preferences….that is an interesting notion. Does it mean that Blacks are the preferred race? The language, the name of the issue has been taken over in this case. In their new book called Talking the Walk: A Communications Guide for Racial Justice, Hunter Cutting and Makani Themba-Nixon say that racial justice advocates must re-frame the discussion around the issue of affirmative action. What do you call a policy that tries to level the playing field or provide some restitution for the way that Blacks have been treated in this country? The authors of this excellent media justice book say that it would be better to call affirmative action a policy of "dismantling the vestiges of Jim Crow" era laws or "decreasing white privilege." According to anti-racism activist and author Tim Wise the question is not "should we have racial preferences for people of color, rather, should we continue to have racial preferences for Whites?" Herein lies the answer to the question I posed earlier ... why are primarily White people spending so much energy and money to outlaw affirmative action programs in Michigan? I think one of the reasons is because the White power structure not only feels threatened by the gains of the civil rights movement, but they actually want to do away with the rights people have struggled to obtain.
