proponents of the mcri claim that the initiative will make illegal only those programs and policies, affecting university admissions, public employment, and contracting, that grant "preferential treatment" based on gender, race, or ethnicity. these claims were disputed by some opponents who cite california's proposition 209, alleging that the language of that proposal outlawed "all affirmative action policies" and programs, and mcri's language is nearly identical. proponents counter this argument by arguing that while mcri is nearly identical to california's amendment, neither mcri or 209 outlawed "all" or any "affirmative action." they point to programs such as california's use of socio-economic indicators, outreach targeted at the 150 lowest scoring high schools, and traditional anti-discrimination enforcement as some among many race-neutral types of "affirmative action". on march 7, 2007, however, the michigan civil rights commission, which had previously fought against proposal 2, issued a report at the behest of the governor, taking the position that proposal 2 did not eliminate "all" affirmative action. in their summary of a 63-page report, linda parker, chair of the commission, now agreed with proposal 2 advocates, "with this report, the commission and department confirm that proposal 2 does not mean the end of equal opportunity or diversity in michigan,". the report explicitly cites the difference between "preferential treatment" and "affirmative action". proponent of proposal 2, chetly zarko, argued that this "flip-flop" by the commission not only proved mcri was correct all along about the legal issues and difference, but that it disproved the commission's report alleging "fraud" in signature-collection since the commission had previously alleged in its june 2006 fraud-allegation report that petitioners "should" have used the words "affirmative action" in their presentation..