Read This Letter!

Unfortunately, there are not many veterans of the civil rights movement of the 1960s and earlier who remained true to the non-discriminatory ideal of that movement. One who did is Carl Cohen, professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, former Michigan director and still loyal member of the ACLU, and one of the orginal sponsors of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

I have written about Prof. Cohen several times before (here, here, and here), and I’m not going to do so here, at least not more than I already have. Instead, I want you to read the following letter that he sent recently to Ms. Kary Moss, the Executive Director of the Michigan Civil Liberties Union, which I reprint (or whatever the electronic equivalent of that is) with Prof. Cohen’s permission. The letter came to me from Chetly Zarko, who posted it on his web site first, who in turn got it from Dave Huber. Normally I’d quote a few hightlights and link to Chetly’s site, but since I’d quote virtually the whole thing if I quoted only the good parts I decided simply to post the whole thing:

Carl Cohen

[Address Deleted]

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

9 December 2005

Ms. Kary Moss

Executive Director

ACLU of Michigan

60 W. Hancock

Detroit, MI 48201-1343

Dear Kary:

Warm greetings.

Your long and thoughtful letter of 1 December 2005, reporting the activities of the ACLU of Michigan, is in hand. Thank you for writing. And thank you for your continuing concern for the liberties and rights of our citizens. I respond to your request and enclose another contribution to the ACLU of Michigan in the amount of $250. The long-honored principles of the American Civil Liberties Union have been my principles for the whole of my adult life.

You will be well aware of efforts to keep the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative off the Michigan ballot. I would have expected the ACLU to oppose those efforts (whatever our views on the substance of the Initiative) because we agree that issues of importance are rightly resolved by the people of the state, when, as in this case, and in full accordance with the law, 455,000 vetted signatures (approximately 135,000 more than were needed) had been delivered to the office of the Secretary of State. I was one of those who personally carried those signature petitions into the offices of the department of elections, in Lansing. I was one of the major contributors to that signature-gathering campaign. I was joined by more than 1,700 volunteers, all across the state of Michigan, who collected those signatures in the conviction that it is plainly wrong, in morals and in law, for the State of Michigan to discriminate, or to give preference, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

If the American Civil Liberties Union stands for anything I believe it must stand for the equal treatment of persons without regard to their color or their national origin. That the ACLU of Michigan does not now defend this most fundamental principle of justice is matter of continuing and bitter disappointment to me and to many other loyal members.

The Michigan Court of Appeals, as you know, ordered (on 31 October 2005) the Michigan Board of Canvassers to certify the MCRI for the statewide ballot. After having issued that order, explaining with its order that it was the duty of the Board of Canvassers to certify in the light of the correct and fully adequate petitions that had been timely submitted, the Board of Canvassers defied the Court and declined to certify as instructed; in fact, the Board then removed the consideration that matter from its own agenda on 7 December 2005.

A group with which you, Kary, have regrettably associated us, calling itself “By Any Means Necessary” — a concept about as far removed from the democratic process, and from what we in the ACLU stand for as one can get – joined by another group calling itself “In the Hood Research,” seeking to delay certification as much as possible, filed a motion for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals.

They succeeded in delaying the matter for about four hours. Later in the day on the 7th of December the Court of Appeals issued a ruling denying the motion for reconsideration, and granting the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative’s Motion for Immediate Effect, and obliging the Board of Canvassers to meet forthwith to certify in accordance with their duty. Certification is not to be delayed by further appeals.

Moreover, the Court of Appeals, on its own motion, issued punitive sanctions — $500 fines — against the three “In the Hood Research” plaintiffs, for filing a motion so patently lacking in propriety. The Court of Appeals wrote that its earlier decision, ordering certification of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was a matter of clearly settled law, and that “this order simply reaffirms the People’s Constitutional right to vote.

It is my earnest hope that, for the sake of our integrity, and our loyalty to the procedural rights of the citizens of our state, that (whatever may be the judgments some of us may reach about the substantive merits of the MCRI) we will, as an organization devoted to fair process above all, formally separate ourselves from “In the Hood Research,” and from the very appropriately named “By Any Means Necessary.”

I served for many years as a leader of the ACLU in Michigan, and nationally. If we stood for anything then, if we stand for anything still, it is the conviction that objectives, however worthy, may not be advanced “by any means necessary.” Am I not right about that? This is a serious question, Kary, and as your loyal member I ask you to respond to it. If I am not right about this it may be time for me, and perhaps many others as well, to reconsider our association with a group that pursues its objectives by any means necessary.

More. I register strong objection to that passage in your letter of December 1 in which you write, “Ward Connerly has succeeded in placing an initiative on the ballot to amend the Michigan Constitution.” As a member of the steering committee of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative I am much offended by this assertion. It is not true; Ward Connerly did not put the MCRI on our ballot. And the insinuation is nasty. Hundreds of thousands of Michigan citizens joined to place the Initiative on the ballot; I was one of those who contributed heavily to support the effort to gather those signatures. We – Jennifer Gratz, Barbara Grutter, and I — were indeed proud to accept the support of Ward Connerly, along with that hundreds of thousands of others. That passage in your letter, Kary, is deceptive and unworthy of you.

Your letter includes another statement that is deceptive or false. You write: “This ballot initiative, if passed, will effectively end affirmative action for both women and people of color.”

Affirmative action means different things to different people, as you know well. There are many important forms of affirmative action that are not preferential and that are not affected in any way by the MCRI; they certainly will not be ended when the Initiative is adopted in November of 2006. If you mean that the MCRI will end race preferences you are right; say that. That is true. But “affirmative action,” which had a very honorable origin and (in its early days) an honorable career as part of the long effort to uproot race preferences, is not mentioned in the Initiative and is not at issue in the coming campaign over the MCRI.

We members of the ACLU expect you, as our Executive Director, to behave honorably and to speak forthrightly and without chicanery in debate and in communication with the public. Sharp disagreement among ourselves is not at all uncommon, we know. But sly innuendo is – for us – unacceptable.

In my judgment the ACLU of Michigan is deeply wrong to defend race preferences. We are disloyal to our own deepest principles when we do so. I may be in error about this. But if you believe that it is right to defend race preferences, say that forthrightly and give your reasons. That view will almost certainly be rejected by Michigan citizens, but at least you will then retain your good repute, and not besmirch that of the ACLU.

Receive my personal good wishes, please. You have a permanent standing invitation to come to Ann Arbor as my guest, where the two of us can discuss these matters privately in full detail. I will gladly take you to the best meal Ann Arbor can provide!

And if you would be willing to have that discussion between us in public, as a debate here in Ann Arbor, that would be splendid. You have only to express that wish and we will find a venue for a well-publicized forum in Ann Arbor on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative – just the two of us on the two sides of the matter. We will argue the substance of the matter civilly and courteously, without accusations of fraud or racism, as is our proud tradition. Such a debate will be very well attended, I am certain. It may be, however, that the public defense of race preference by the American Civil Liberties Union is a humiliation you will wish to avoid. I will await your forthright response on this matter also.

Finally, I ask you to convey my sincere good wishes to the members of the State Board of the ACLU, on which I served for so many years, and I ask specifically that you distribute copies of this letter to each of the members of the Board.

Respectfully and very cordially yours,

Carl Cohen

Professor of Philosophy

The University of Michigan

I commend this letter to you not only for its impeccable argument, but also for its grace and civility. As Professor Cohen so well demonstrates, it is not necessary to be disagreeable to disagree with someone.

UPDATE [12 Dec.]

The “by any means necessary” mentality that Cohen rightly criticizes is, of course, not limited to BAMN. As Robert Novak writes today:

Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice in 2004 declared she will do “whatever it takes” to keep conservatives off the Supreme Court. This year, when Aron was asked what she would do to stop Alito, she replied, “You name it, we’ll do it.”

Aron; Ralph Neas; Senators Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, et. al. operate on the principle that when liberals win control of the presidency and Congress they have earned the right to name federal judges. And when conservatives win control of the presidency and Congress? Well, then liberals retain the right to name federal judges … or to prevent the confirmation of any they don’t approve.

Say What? (8)

  1. Chetly Zarko December 10, 2005 at 5:26 pm | | Reply

    John, Just to be precise, I got the letter directly from Carl first. Hube merely encouraged me to blog on it since he received it from AADAP, whom Carl also has regular contact with, hence the multiple hat tips; once I realized Carl sent it to Tom Wood for dissmenination, I also decided to post the whole letter with Carl’s permission. The letter uses several passages from my original blog entry on the 4 hour delay, which Carl received in turn from AADAP’s e-mail reposting (and yours) of that news a couple days ago. There was no intentional coordination of the letter with my Dec 8 blog entry – Carl sent the letter to Moss quite spontaneously based on several pieces of information he had and copied me to it. Its an interesting combination of the blogoshpere and listserv-osphere feeding back on each other.

  2. Chetly Zarko December 10, 2005 at 5:33 pm | | Reply

    By the way, the letter is brilliant, even though it will hit deaf ears …

  3. John Rosenberg December 10, 2005 at 7:25 pm | | Reply

    Chetly – Thanks for the clarification. Carl is a treasure.

  4. what if? December 11, 2005 at 9:16 am | | Reply

    Back When

    Remember back when those who fought for civil rights gave their all so that people would not be discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin? John Rosenberg of Discriminations highlights those who are

  5. dchamil December 11, 2005 at 12:27 pm | | Reply

    John, you are no slouch yourself when it comes to writing which is a model of grace, clarity, and civility.

  6. staghounds December 13, 2005 at 5:44 am | | Reply

    Good luck with that ” civilly and courteously, without accusations of fraud or racism” deal.

  7. David Nieporent December 14, 2005 at 4:08 pm | | Reply

    John, the major problem liberals have in this country today is the civil rights movement. Because most liberals of that era were unquestionably on the right side then, and most conservatives of that era were not, liberals internalized the idea that they were more moral than conservatives. Worse, they internalized the notion that they were moral and conservatives were immoral.

    And then they decided that if this was true, it would remain true. Not just on that issue, but generally. And if you’re really moral and your opponents are really immoral, then why not do “whatever it takes”?

  8. Laura(southernxyl) December 15, 2005 at 8:16 am | | Reply

    David – that’s it.

Say What?