I have posted, with examples, too many times to cite the apparent inability of critics of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative to avoid distortion and outright misrepresentation (most recent example here). They’re still at it, and this time the Governor, Jennifer Granholm, joins (or re-joins, since this is not her first time) the distortion brigade.
I was all set to write another of my predictable exposés of her misrepresentations and distortions, but now, for reasons that will become clear in a moment, I don’t have to. What I will do instead is respond to a similar misrepresentation from Stephanie Chang, the “coalition organizer for Michigan United, a statewide organization opposing the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.” Ms. Chang repeats the “outside agitator” complaint so familiar to students (and veterans) of the civil rights movement, and she also repeats the familiar canard that calling MCRI a civil rights measure is “deception.” Those are par for the course, but now look at her repetition of one of the more bizarre claims of MCRI critics:
Connerly, one of the leading black opponents of affirmative action, claims giving ‘‘preferential treatment’’ to minorities is a form of discrimination in itself. He says the initiative is modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
However, the initiative – similar to Proposition 209, which passed in California in 1996 – could have chilling effects on many kinds of programs across the state, its opponents say.
‘‘Our worst fear is that the ban on affirmative action will eliminate opportunities and efforts that have been achieved so far, in helping women, people of color and persons with disabilities to obtain an equal footing,’’ said [Anita] Bowden, [executive director] of the YWCA .
‘‘If those programs get eliminated – and we’ve seen what has happened in California – programs will be eliminated that directly impact the health and welfare of these groups.’’
At first glance, Chang said, most voters might not have a clear sense of what the consequences are – unless they educate themselves.
A ban on affirmative action could mean the end of state funding for gender-specific health services, including breast, prostate and cervical cancer screenings, she said.
O.K., we get the picture. Ward Connerly is the bogeyman outside agitator from evil California, and look what happened out there when he persuaded those crazies to outlaw racial preferences….
But wait a minute. What did happen? Did the passage of Proposition 209 in California, and the similar I-200 in Washington, result in “the end of state funding for gender-specific health services, including breast, prostate and cervical cancer screenings” or have any effect whatsoever on “persons with disabilities”? Answer: of course not, since neither Prop. 209 nor MCRI had anything at all to do with cancer treatment or any disabilities. That such claims continue to be made speaks to the character or knowledge both of MCRI critics and journalists who shamelessly provide a friendly megaphone for their baseless and even ridiculous the-sky-will-fall! predictions.
Since Ms. Bowden is so familiar with “what has happened in California,” it would be quite helpful if she or Ms. Chang would point to examples of prostrate and cervical cancer screenings being curtailed, disabled people thrown out of their wheelchairs, or similar travesties. Although it would be a novel departure, it would also be instructive if some renegade journalist would stray off the plantation and ask for such evidence in the course of clipping together the quotes of MCRI critics. Of course, no such evidence exists, because Prop. 209 and I-200 (and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 whose principle they applied) had no such intent or effect.
Now back to Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian-born governor who is complaining loudly about outsiders daring to participate in Michigan politics. I was all set to tee off on her column when I was sent a copy of the following letter Ward Connerly sent to her, after the Free Press refused MCRI space to reply. Posted with permission below, it says what I would have said, if I’d been smart enough to think of it all and a good enough writer to say it so well.
March 17, 2006
The Honorable Jennifer M. Granholm
Office of Governor
State of Michigan
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, MI 48909
Dear Governor Granholm:
In your March 9, 2005 Guest Column, “Affirmative action ban would hurt state’s future,” you took great liberties in making reference to me and my motives for supporting and promoting the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI). At the end of your piece, you extended an open invitation for readers to write to you. Because I saw no exception that would prohibit me from accepting that invitation, I am doing so accordingly.
At the outset, let me address my status as an “outsider.” Governor, I was born in Leesville, Louisiana, a fact which makes me an American citizen by birth. How is it that you, being Canadian by birth, have a greater entitlement to the privileges and benefits of American citizenship than I? Among those benefits and privileges is the right to have opinions and the right to express those opinions about matters – big and small – that affect all Americans. Michigan is not an island in some foreign country. It is one of the American states to which my tax dollars flow and where my passport of “civil rights” is presumed to be valid. If your defense of racial and gender preferences is on such solid ground, why is it necessary to hearken back to the days of Jim Crow segregationists who complained about those “outsiders” who asserted their right to urge our nation to fulfill the promise of equal treatment to all Americans, regardless of race, color, or national ancestry?
What is it about individuals such as you and Congressman John Dingell, who has also taken me to task for exercising my right as an American to express opposition to race preferences in Michigan, that causes you to be so intolerant and insecure about your convictions that you resort to such intellectual isolationism when it comes to an issue such as race? On the one hand, you talk boldly about the “global economy,” but then you retreat into your state’s rights cocoon when it comes to matters such as civil rights.
You assert that had I been from Michigan, I would know that “diversity is part and parcel in our economic strength.” Are you kidding? Or, are you simply attempting to distract the people of your state, for political reasons, by making me a bogey man? California is one of the most “diverse” places on the planet. The California economy is vibrant and booming. And, I hasten to add, California is a state that has outlawed preferential treatment on the basis of race, gender and ethnicity. Michigan, on the other hand, is regarded by many as one of the preference capitals of the nation. How is your economy? How many jobs are you losing day-by-day? To what “economic strength” are you making reference? Are you really expecting your residents to believe that by ending preferential treatment on the basis of race, gender and ethnicity, your state’s economy will worsen even more? If so, such an assertion defies logic.
It is amusing that you call the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative “deceptively named.” Have you ever read the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Do you consider the principle of equal treatment “without regard to race, color or ethnicity,” contained in that Act, to be such a deception that the Congress erred in naming it the “Civil Rights Act?” Has it escaped your attention that the principle contained in MCRI is identical to that contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Your column, which seems to attempt to summon the better nature of your electorate by appealing to the importance of “diversity,” is inconsistent in one major respect. You say that if I knew your people better I would understand that you appreciate the value of “teamwork and unity.” You point to the great pride that the people of Michigan can take in their “steady advance of freedom and equality.” All of this is true. Why, then, do you presume that these same good people are closet bigots who are just waiting for the opportunity to discriminate against women and “minorities?” Why do you lack confidence in their capacity to treat others the way they wish to be treated – with fairness and dignity?
If you oppose “quotas,” as you say you do, how can you support their functional equivalent and the method by which quotas are obtained – “preferential treatment?” Like so many others who express their opposition to “quotas,” your opposition rings hollow when you seek to have it both ways: oppose quotas but support preferential treatment of women and others based on skin color and ethnic background.
I was born in the Deep South, at a time when racial discrimination was rampant. I know first-hand the meaning of the term “racial discrimination.” I doubt that you can say the same. Your knowledge about discrimination was probably gleaned from history books. In days of my youth, as a brown-skinned man, I rarely heard the term, “diversity.” But, I sure as hell heard and experienced “discrimination.” And, I can tell you that the pursuit of diversity should never be an excuse for our government to sanction or practice discrimination based on an individual’s race, color, gender, ethnicity or national ancestry. That principle should be guaranteed to Jennifer Gratz, a white woman, equally as it is guaranteed to me, a black man. One should not have to be an “outsider from California” to convince you of the importance of the fundamental principle of equal treatment before the law without regard to the color of a person’s skin. This principle is deeply etched in the character of most Americans. Had you been born in America, perhaps you would have a better appreciation of this fact.
Finally, let me address two astounding claims that you make about the effects of MCRI. First, you claim that MCRI would “eliminate programs that are encouraging female and minority students to pursue “these (scientists and engineers) critical careers.” MCRI would do no such thing. It would prohibit you from giving them “preferential treatment.” It certainly would not prohibit you from “encouraging” them to pursue careers in these fields. Also, let me state the obvious: since you are currently able to grant preferential treatment based on gender, why aren’t there more women in these fields now? Could there be other factors that have nothing to do with the issue of “affirmative action?”
Have you noticed that at elite institutions of higher education, such as Harvard, UC Berkeley, the University of Michigan and others, where race and gender preferences are taken most seriously, the number of “affirmative action” beneficiaries who graduate with degrees in science and engineering is no greater than at other institutions? It is not rocket science to realize that this phenomenon has nothing to do with the ability to promote “diversity.” This argument is a fig leaf for other objectives. If women can be governors and among the highest paid university presidents in the land, without any “preferential treatment,” why should we believe they need “affirmative action” to become scientists or engineers?
Second, you acknowledge the need to “eliminate the achievement gap in education in Michigan,” but you claim that MCRI “would end programs that help minority students achieve the high standards we are setting in our schools.”
Governor, this would be laughable were it not so tragic. It is clear that you have little knowledge about what accounts for this achievement gap. Moreover, if this gap exists in a paradigm that promotes preferential treatment, but is widening instead of closing, pray tell how the elimination of preferences will worsen the situation. Frankly, as a “minority,” I consider it demeaning and insulting that you believe “minority” students can only meet high standards by the benefice of preferential treatment. Had you lived through the period of my youth and been subjected to the conditions of racial oppression, as I was, you would know about the strength of spirit of black people and their ability to achieve without preferences, as long as they were not held back by discrimination based on the color of their skin.
If you seriously want to help “minority students” – and I certainly believe you do – then you will lead the way in giving them greater freedom to attend a school of their choice. You will lead the effort to eliminate “legacy” admissions so that all students will have an equal chance, regardless of whether their ancestors attended the university or not. You will make it possible for the daughter of a union worker, whose parents did not attend UM, to have the same chance as the son of a big automaker executive, whose dad had the privilege of graduating from UM and who donates large sums to preserve a preference for his children and grandchildren. You would lend your support to the growing national movement in favor of socioeconomic “affirmative action” instead of race-based “affirmative action.” Help those who need it, not those who happened to be born with the right color of the day.
Should you care to further this discussion and to become enlightened about the facts of this controversy instead of relying on the sound-bites of those aligned with you, I am at your service. Certainly, even an “outside activist from California,” whose tax dollars end up in the coffers of Michigan, might have something to offer on a subject that seems to be of such interest to you.
Sincerely,
Ward Connerly
2 points for Mr. Connerly. What he states is more than a little obvious to anyone who is not motivated by partisan politics. Also, he is a fine writer. No wonder he got proposition 209 passed in CA.
Extraordinary! A real “tour de force” in the argument for equal rights for all Americans. Thanks so much for posting. I hope this letter is widely disminated.
Such an excellent post, John, I linked to it! For some reason, however, my trackbacks don’t seem to be tracking back….
Ward Connerly writes:
>>>”I was born in the Deep South, at a time when racial discrimination was rampant. I know first-hand the meaning of the term “racial discrimination.” I doubt that you can say the same. Your knowledge about discrimination was probably gleaned from history books. In days of my youth, as a brown-skinned man, I rarely heard the term, “diversity.” But, I sure as hell heard and experienced “discrimination.” And, I can tell you that the pursuit of diversity should never be an excuse for our government to sanction or practice discrimination based on an individual’s race, color, gender, ethnicity or national ancestry. That principle should be guaranteed to Jennifer Gratz, a white woman, equally as it is guaranteed to me, a black man. One should not have to be an “outsider from California” to convince you of the importance of the fundamental principle of equal treatment before the law without regard to the color of a person’s skin. This principle is deeply etched in the character of most Americans. Had you been born in America, perhaps you would have a better appreciation of this fact.”
For frequent readers of “Discriminations”, one might note the TONE of this passage in comparison to posts I’ve written on the subject here.
This man…this “activist” has virtual claimed his skin color and racial affiliation is some sort of “superhuman characteristic” that allows him to somehow know more about “racial discrimination” than white Governor Jennifer Granholm, with whom he had no personal relationship with based upon the structure of his letter.
However, Connerly then chooses to hold up an equally white Jennifer Gratz as an example of a person who experienced “racial discrimination.”
Ward Connerly in this letter has “copyrighted” the use of race for his own arguments while accusing Governor Graholm and anybody else who disagrees with “infringement.”
Typical, but not shocking.
–Cobra
Cobra, there is a difference, and Ward would acknowledge that there is a difference, between the racial discrimination he experienced in the 1960s, which included virulent forms of discrimination including threat of death, and the racial discrimination Jennifer experienced in 1996 when denied admission to the University of Michigan on the basis of her race. The latter may not compare in scope, but is insidious because it creates a cycle of thought within society that not only harms Jennifer but harms blacks and all who are trained to think in terms of group identity, held to a lower standard, and have the real causes of the achievement gap concealed with the rhetoric of the easy diversity “solution.”
Ward’s experience qualifies him only to speak from both perspectives – it doesn’t give him special or superhuman powers or priveleges, but it gives him a credibility that I (and individuals such as yourself would deny to me) do not have on the basis of my age and race. When a white person says what Ward says, you accuse them of not having the “life experience” to make their own reasoned judgement about the issue – therefore, Ward Connerly is a natural evolution and requirement to the movement, but had Ward not existed I believe that fate would have found someone else who would have filled his role.
Chetly writes:
>>>”Ward’s experience qualifies him only to speak from both perspectives – it doesn’t give him special or superhuman powers or priveleges, but it gives him a credibility that I (and individuals such as yourself would deny to me) do not have on the basis of my age and race. When a white person says what Ward says, you accuse them of not having the “life experience” to make their own reasoned judgement about the issue – therefore, Ward Connerly is a natural evolution and requirement to the movement, but had Ward not existed I believe that fate would have found someone else who would have filled his role.”
But Chetly, that’s akin to saying that ONLY African-Americans have credibility when discussing racial discrimination…something I’ve NEVER claimed on this or any other blog.
Read Ward Connerly’s statement again:
>>>”I was born in the Deep South, at a time when racial discrimination was rampant. I know first-hand the meaning of the term “racial discrimination.” I doubt that you can say the same. Your knowledge about discrimination was probably gleaned from history books. In days of my youth, as a brown-skinned man, I rarely heard the term, “diversity.” But, I sure as hell heard and experienced “discrimination.” ”
Notice the DISMISSIVE tone he takes to Governor Granholm, when Connerly for all intents and purposes tells her:
“It’s a black thing, and you wouldn’t understand.”
In my pro-preferences arguments, I try to give the benefit of doubt to my opponents. On multiple occasions, I’ve spelled out that it’s entirely possible for some to be against Affirmative-Action based on principle, and not “invidiousness”.
Think of our own discussions here over the years, Chetly. I attack your actions, statements and point of view, and concede points to you when I think you’re correct. I don’t dismiss your statements on race discrimination simply because you’re white, which you seem to accuse me of in your statement.
The irony is, that’s the EXACT SAME TACTIC that Connerly uses against Governor Granholm.
Also, unlike Ward Connerly, I’m not a “part time black man.” I’m an African-American 24-7-365…not just when it’s a convenient prop to hurl against white liberals.
–Cobra