BAMN BAMN You’re Dead

BAMN (By Any Means Necessary), the militant pro-preferences group, has filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Board of Canvassers to keep the Michigan Civil Rights Inititative off the ballot. It charges MCRI “with deliberate deception” because MCRI claims that the initiative, which would outlaw racial preferences in Michigan, is “a civil rights bill when it isn’t. In reality, what they’re doing is passing an anti-civil rights amendment.”

That’s true if (but only if) what one means by civil rights is racial preference.

That is exactly what BAMN means. Luke Massie, the national co-chair, says BAMN takes

the most issue with the phrase, “or grant preferential treatment to.” The five words are misleading to Michigan voters, Massie said.

“They’re supposed to understand that it means outlawing all affirmative-action policies,” he said. “They are voting on something that is kept secret from them in the language of the petition.”

The language seems pretty clear to me. I wonder what part of “or grant preferential treatment to” BAMN thinks is unclear.

BAMN also took action against the use of quotes and images of Martin Luther King Jr. on material supporting the initiative, including a one-sentence quote on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Web site.

The quote in question says: “The true measure of a man is not how he behaves in moments of comfort and convenience but how he stands at times of controversy and challenge.”

BAMN members said the use of King’s words misrepresents what King stood for.

“This has been a tactic of the right wing, to pretend they stand in the footsteps of Dr. King,” said Shanta Driver, spokesperson and national co-chair for BAMN. “Dr. King would have supported affirmative action

I wonder if BAMN thinks MCRI should get permission from the Monticello Foundation if it should want to quote Jefferson’s line about all men being created equal.

Say What? (7)

  1. Nels Nelson February 21, 2004 at 4:06 am | | Reply

    I can’t help but interpret the MCRI’s use of the Martin Luther King, Jr. quote as disingenuous. The only quote from King to appear on the MCRI site, it is displayed on the volunteer registration page and is so generic that it could be used for motivational purposes by almost any cause, from anti-nuclear proliferation to the repeal of fishing permit laws. King spoke and wrote primarily of discrimination, and there are probably hundreds of quotes which could be taken from him on the subject, yet MCRI selected a quote which was uncontroversial, only marginally relevant to the purpose of their organization, and unrepresentative of the general understanding of King’s work. Eloquent quotes from others exist on the subject of courageous action during times of conflict, leading me to suspect the MCRI’s goal is the tacit association of their organization with the civil rights legacy for which King is widely known.

    If I proposed a Privitization and Workers’ Rights Initiative, clearly with the objective of imposing a Socialist state, and on my organization’s website used the Reagan quote, “Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things,” I think Conservatives would be justified in accusing me of using an uncontroversial, generic statement in an attempt to appropriate Reagan’s overall legacy and garner the votes of undiscerning Reagan supporters.

  2. John Rosenberg February 21, 2004 at 9:53 am | | Reply

    I have no connection with MCRI, and so I’m not sure why they chose that rather generic quote. I suspect, however, that they would claim that their advocacy of the colorblind non-discrimination principle is explicitly, not tacitly, in the tradition of ML King. As I have acknowledged here before, it may well be true that “if King were alive today” he would be supporting racial preferences. (On the other hand, he might not.) But the crucial question is not what he would do today; it is what does the principle that he so eloquently articulated (judging people by their character, not their color, etc.) mean?

  3. KRM February 21, 2004 at 11:18 am | | Reply

    Racial preferences have always seemed (to me) to be contrary to Dr. King’s vision (people dealt with by the content of character rather than by the color of the skin, etc.). To me, Affirmative Action would be to apply some extra effort (and, yes, invest some additional resources) in the arena of providing education and training to those stuck on the lower rungs of society’s ladder. It is the concept of teaching them how to catch a fish, rather than giving them a fish. Allowing an underqualified student into a good university does not really benefit anyone (and causes a lot of other tangential problems that will further impede progress on racial issues). It would be far better to concentrate on earlier work to enable minorities to fully qualify for a good university (or the particular jobs). I believe that the current culture of preferences is counter-productive in this regard.

  4. Laura February 21, 2004 at 11:53 am | | Reply

    I find it ironic that a group called By Any Means Necessary thinks it appropriate to try to interpret MLK. King broke it down to his listeners like this: We don’t want to burn down the cities. We have to live in them afterwards.

    Does this sound like “by any means necessary”?

  5. Richard Nieporent February 21, 2004 at 12:06 pm | | Reply

    “They’re supposed to understand that it means outlawing all affirmative-action policies,” he said. “They are voting on something that is kept secret from them in the language of the petition.”

    One again the Left wants to use the courts to subvert democracy. This is the same tactic that was used by the Left in the California recall election when they tried to get the election postponed because minorities would be “disenfranchised” by the voting machines.

    The truth is of course that the Left can’t leave anything as important as voting to the people because they may be too stupid to vote the “correct way” on an issue.

  6. Stephen February 22, 2004 at 8:55 am | | Reply

    Richard, they don’t think we’re too stupid. They are convinced that everybody is a bigot… except them.

    You can’t allow bigots to vote on any important issues. That would be… Well, what would it be?

  7. Richard Nieporent February 22, 2004 at 11:18 am | | Reply

    Good point Stephen. I stand corrected. It is only minorities that they think are too stupid to be able to vote correctly as in the Florida presidential voting.

Say What?