The Michigan Legal Foundation is the new civil liberties advocate in Michigan. It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest law firm committed to opposing human rights violations and defending the rights of citizens, regardless of their political or ideological position. In the past other organizations fulfilled this important role, but over time, political agendas have come to overshadow a pure defense of civil liberties. There is a great need and a great opportunity for a new organization to rise to meet this challenge. That organization is the Michigan Legal Foundation.

We do not mean to disparage the roles played by other organizations; indeed we commend their hard work to defend and protect liberties. Furthermore, the Michigan Legal Foundation is committed to cooperating with, and working alongside, other organizations where doing so will best defend and advance human rights. The Foundation's unique role here in Michigan can be illustrated by briefly discussing three areas of law in which the Foundation differs markedly from the Michigan ACLU.

We believe in equal protection under the law for all people, regardless of their beliefs or other characteristics. In the eyes of the law, all should be treated equally, regardless of their gender, religion, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status or other factors. The Michigan ACLU, in contrast, has fought to defend racial stereotypes and unconstitutional quotas¹.

We believe that all groups and individuals should have the same opportunity to associate freely, regardless of whether their beliefs conform to certain political, ideological, or religious viewpoints. The ACLU, on the other hand, is actively working to oppose the Boy Scouts and stop the creation of local troops, based on the value judgments and decisions of that organization. Its position here provides a sad indication that not everyone shares the opinion that each person is entitled to his or her own set of beliefs, and toleration seems to have become forced association, rather than permitting people to freely arrange their organizations² and relationships. It is a hard lesson of history that the rights of none are safe when the rights of some are trampled.

Along those same lines, we believe that the First Amendment demands government neutrality toward religion, and not hostility. That is, while it is generally agreed upon that government cannot advance religion, it is equally true that it can neither inhibit nor discourage religion through its laws, practices or programs. The Michigan ACLU, on the other hand, seeks to prevent voluntary prayer groups from meeting at schools³, and seeks to exclude religious schools from the benefits of general welfare legislation.⁴

The ALCU is also committed to the destruction of what they call "the outmoded and unfair employment-at-will doctrine."⁵ Such broad social and political advocacy is a cause for concern for the people of Michigan and for the Michigan Legal Foundation. Not only does it threaten freedom of association in the workplace, but if employers can be required against their will to keep incompatible or unproductive employees on the job, there is little to stop the reverse, that is, requiring a worker to stay, whether he or she wishes to or not. Such a move would be a blow to everyone's freedoms.

The Foundation differs from the ACLU in that we espouse the right to own and be secure in one's property as a fundamental civil right that warrants protection from government encroachment. We believe that the security of personal rights is directly related to security of rights in property, and a defense of one of these areas while ignoring the other can only prove counterproductive. For example, how can one enjoy freedom of the press if one is forbidden to own the necessary machinery or the paper upon which the words will be printed? Or how can people of faith exercise their religious liberty when ordinances prevent them from associating in their homes or limit where their houses of worship may be located?

[1] http://www.aclumich.org/briefs/affirmativeaction990810.htm. See also Grutter v. Bollinger, 16 F. Supp. 2d 797.

[2] (http://www.aclumich.org/docket/docket2000.htm)

[3] (Daugherty v. Vanguard Charter Academy; Cooperating Attorney: Kary Love. http://www.aclumich.org/docket/docket2000.htm)

[4] (Johnson v. Oakland County Economic Development Corporation; Cooperating Attorney: Prof. Robert Sedler. http://www.aclumich.org/docket/docket2000.htm)

[5] ACLU Briefing Paper Number 12, The Rights of Employees.