NCFM-LA Mentioned in MI Ballot Proposal Story

	posted by Matt on 10:54 AM March 11th, 2005
	The NCFM-LA lawsuit against California was metnioned in a news story regarding a challenge to Michigan's state university admission policies. Click "Read more..." for more.

	On-line, this story is found at: http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/base/news-23/111048131026580.xml&storylist=mibusiness Ballot proposal could threaten programs for women, study says 3/10/2005, 2:55 p.m. ET By DEE-ANN DURBIN The Associated Press DETROIT (AP) - Breast cancer screenings, science camps for girls and other programs for women would be threatened under a proposal that could appear on Michigan's ballot in 2006, a University of Michigan researcher says. Susan Kaufmann, associate director of the Center for the Education of Women, planned to release her report Friday at the Michigan Women's Summit. The summit was being held in three locations connected by satellite. Among those scheduled to attend were Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the women presidents of Michigan, Michigan State University and Western Michigan University. Jennifer Gratz, who sued the University of Michigan over its admission policies, now is promoting the ballot measure for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. The group says the measure would ban universities and state and local governments from discriminating based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Gratz said Thursday that the proposal is taking aim at discrimination in public contracts and public education but wouldn't affect health programs. "The University of Michigan is reaching. They're grabbing at straws," Gratz said. "They are practicing discrimination based on race, and they want to change the debate." The group wants to get the proposal on the ballot in Michigan in November 2006. State officials are reviewing 508,000 signatures that the group submitted in January. Kaufmann said a similar measure that passed in California in 1996 has eliminated or changed many programs originally meant to help women. A summer science academy that used to emphasize education of girls and minorities had to change its focus, she said. Other programs now target low-income communities instead of girls and minorities, Kaufmann said. Kaufmann said the National Coalition of Free Men, a men's rights group, is challenging all state programs for women in California in a lawsuit. The group also filed a lawsuit against California domestic violence shelters receiving state funding, but a judge upheld that funding under a separate California law that protects programs for women and minorities. Kaufmann said Michigan law has no protections against such lawsuits, so state- or locally funded programs for women could be at risk. That would include scholarships for women, government programs that help women-owned businesses and gender-specific screenings for cervical or prostate cancer, Kaufmann said. "(The proposal) does not provide for exceptions for the health and well-being of affected populations, but instead seeks a blanket ban on targeted programs based in race, gender and ethnicity," Kaufmann said in the study. Gratz said opponents should ask themselves why they believe programs should give special attention to one race or gender. "If it's good for one gender or if it's good for one race, why wouldn't it be good for everyone?" she said. *__ On the Net: Michigan Civil Rights Initiative: http://www.mcri2004.org/ Center for the Education of Women: http://www.umich.edu/~cew/

<  Women given 15 minute handicap at LA Marathon | 15 Year Old Girl Poisons Mother's Boyfriend  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Good for the goose is good for the gander! (Score:1) by ArtflDgr on 11:50 AM March 11th, 2005 EST (#1) "If it's good for one gender or if it's good for one race, why wouldn't it be good for everyone?" she said. I think the original way my grandmother put it was whats good for the goose is good for the gander.... i have always described american legal system as a large junk yard dog. yes it may serve to make the dog meaner, but eventually when there is nothing for the animal to chomp on, it tends to turn. which is why there was so many limitations put on things by the founding fathers. they wanted a legal system with bite, not a rabid dog that bites everything that it can get near it. failure to think things through in favor of immediate progress is what i think is happening here. by putting everything in equality terms, eventually they would not be able to claim special priveledge, now that is what is happening. Equality is not possible under special priviledge, and you are watching them suddenly look up and realize that separately they have painted themselves into a corner. at least i will be entertained by the logical backflips they will attempt to use to hold things together, which they cant. they are fractured to the point that there is conceptual infighting as every subject is both angelified or Demonized at the same time (think of the recent spate of articles arguing AGAINST no fault divorce in ny state - they used to be for that) united we stand divided we fall, and feminism as it stands today is a house seriously divided. may you live in interesting times... (sometimes i think these times are way too 'interesting') ArtflDgr

Everyone except men. (Score:1) by Ragtime on 04:22 PM March 11th, 2005 EST (#2) separate California law that protects programs for women and minorities I so often see a sentence like this. So, whenever you see or hear the words "women and children," mentally substitute "everyone except men." If it's "women and minorities" substitute "everyone except White men." I do this, and tell others, too. Even if they scoff, the seed is planted. It'll pop into their heads unbidden the next time they see "women and children." -- and the next, and the next... (grin) It's like saying, "don't think about an elephant." That is today's Subversive Tactics Tip. :) Ragtime The Uppity Wallet The opinions expressed above are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.

State of California comits hate crimes against men (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 10:42 PM March 11th, 2005 EST (#3) "Kaufmann said the National Coalition of Free Men, a men's rights group, is challenging all state programs for women in California in a lawsuit. The group also filed a lawsuit against California domestic violence shelters receiving state funding, but a judge upheld that funding under a separate California law that protects programs for women and minorities." ================================================== ==== Here is another story on the same topic from another paper, The Michigan Daily, Study: MCRI would harm women ================================================== ==== "The report specifically references a lawsuit filed in California by the Los Angeles chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men, in which the group sued battered women’s shelters for violating the state constitution by being gender-specific and hoped state funding to the program would be eliminated. The courts ultimately upheld the funding because of a California statute that protects programs serving women and minorities. However, the report states that Michigan does not have such a law." ================================================== ==== I'm not lawyer, but it appears the appeal was rejected for lack of standing without addressing the merits of the unconstitutionality of the shelters denying shelter to male victims of domestic violence. The judge appears to go on to affirm the validity of 11139, "This article shall not be interpreted in a manner that would adversely affect lawful programs benefiting women." but how can she if she has denied standing to begin with. She even talks about not wasting "judicial resources" resolving the merits if their is no standing. ================================================== ==== STANDING "We will not address the merits of litigation when the plaintiff lacks standing, because "'California courts have no power to render advisory opinions or give declaratory relief.'" 11135 says, "No person in the State of CA shall on the basis of... sex... be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of... any program... that receives financial assistance from the state. She then states 11139 is exempt from the prohibitions of 11135. Why is 11139 not exempt from the man-hating sexist hatred of 11135. It appears to me this judge is really just stating her own misandrist opinion, and that this is just another decision coming down from "The Lace Curtain." How curious that she was so recently appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger to this court as if she were sent to deal with this case. I'm beginning to wonder if Arnold is a feminist toady. Here is the decision of the judge from the 2nd District court of appeal on-line, click on Appellate Decision Item #3 gets into the part about allowing women special privileges and rights not afforded to men, Section 11139, "This article shall not be interpreted in a manner that would adversely affect lawful programs benefiting women." Clearly, a lot more attention needs to be brought to the citizens of California about the sexist and hateful ways the State of California treats males. The law of the State of California is an ass. How noteworthy that Michigan’s should seek to embrace California’s asinine Femiocracy. CALIFORNIA IS SEXIST AND HATEFUL AGAINST MEN CALIFORNIA IS A BASTION OF MISANDRY Sincerely, Ray Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]