I've been under the weather, so there haven't been any updates in the past few days, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot to mention!

First, Nathaniel Jones' death was ruled a homicide by the Hamilton County coroner. Now the caveat is that the coroner says that Jones had a number of health problems that contributed to his death. Though he would not have died at that moment, the coroner urged people not to take this as a case of "hostile or malign behavior." Okay, I am way too fed up to even comment!

The Daily recently had another Diversity explosion! This week the Daily looked at the new bill HR 333, which seeks to have APIA communities listed as one of the minority groups that would recieve federal grants in higher education. To complement their reporting of HR 333, the Daily also ran Lauren Strayer's piece entitled, "Racism among friends." This piece was really pointless, but it keeps ringing in my head, well at least one question does. Why can't you tell your friend not to use the term oriental now?

Also, this week, NASA co-sponsored a program on secret socities, apparently the session got heated. Now isn't the term "bashed" a bit prejorative?

The Michigan Ballot Initiative is now upon us! Below you will find an email from Carl Cohen of the Residential College. Beneath his letter in bold is the proposed ballot intiative that will attempt to prohibit affrimative action, and yes that is the correct term, in the state of Michigan! Organized opposition has already begun. The struggle continues.
Colleagues and friends:

You will have noted that the battle over race preferences in
Michigan has begun. It is not a battle over affirmative action;
affirmative action, vigorous steps designed to extirpate all
discrimination by race and ethnicity, are untouched by the proposition
to be voted on. Ours is a country in which racism has penetrated very
deeply; one would be foolish indeed to suppose that there is no need to
continue the battle to uproot it. But that battle, in a decent society,
will certainly not involve the very discrimination that is to be
eliminated. The proposition on which the people of Michigan will vote in
2004 aims only to forbid all discrimination by the state and it
agencies, including the University of Michigan, and to forbid all
preference by race, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

If you come to believe that it is wise to oppose the Michigan Civil
Rights Initiative, that can only be because you believe that the State
or it agencies must be permitted to give preference by race, sex, or
ethnicity. I find it hard to believe that our university colleagues,
proud of the principle of equality that we universally profess, would on
reflection support such preference.

It is my belief that the people of Michigan, of every color and
kind, despise discrimination by race and national origin, and oppose any
preference granted to persons or groups on those invidious grounds. I
think, therefore, that this proposition, the Michigan Civil Rights
Initiative, will be adopted by the people of Michigan, overwhelmingly
and proudly, as Section 25 of Article I of the Michigan constitution.

To help our general understanding of what is at issue in this
matter, I include here an exact copy of the entire text of the
proposition that is to be on the ballot in the fall of 2004. The first
two sentences below comprise the whole of its substantive force. They
appear repetitive, but that is because the University of Michigan, like
some other public universities in Michigan, are constitutionally
autonomous. The complete text -- which I support with all my heart --
follows:
----------------

A proposal to amend the Constitution of the State of Michigan to
prohibit the University of Michigan and other state universities, the
State, and all other state entities from discriminating or granting
preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin.

The proposal would amend the State constitution by adding a Section 25
to Article I.

Article I, Section 25

Civil Rights.
The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State
University, and any other public college or university, community
college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race,
sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public
employment, public education, or public contracting.

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment,
public education, or public contracting.

For the purpose of this section “state” includes, but is not necessarily
limited to, the state itself, any city, county, public college or
university, community college, school district, or other political
subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of
Michigan.

This section does not affect any law or governmental action that does
not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national
origin.

This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or
maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would
result in loss of federal funds to the State.

Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide
qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal
operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same,
regardless of the injured party’s race, color, religion, ethnicity, or
national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of Michigan’s
anti-discrimination law.

This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this
section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution
or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent
that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any
provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of
this section.

This section applies only to action taken after the effective date of
this section.

This section does not invalidate any court order or consent decree that
is in force as of the effective date of this section.
------------------------