As I first mentioned here, Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz are gearing up to take their successful effort to end race preferences in Michigan to as many as nine (but probably fewer) other states for a “Super Tuesday of Equality” in November 2008.
Not surprisingly, this announcement has generated a good deal of buzz, and, probably as a result of the results in Michigan, some of the coverage has been a bit less hostile than has usually been the case. Certainly the voters of Michigan have put some forceful winds in the sails of those of us who would like to see discrimination ended in all states. Proposition 209 in California in 1996 was the beginning of the end, a result endorsed when voters in Washington state passed the similar I-200 by a healthy margin in 1998. The Supreme Court stepped in to stem this tide, granting a reprieve to preferences in Grutter, but, as Connerly now says, the voters in Michigan overturned that reprieve.
Much of the press coverage of the recent announcement, however, continues to recycle old and familiar pro-preferences shibboleths. (Sometimes it seems as though many journalists keyboards are pre-progrmammed with pro-preference boilerplate.) A good example is this article in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle. Here’s a paragraph that reveals much more than its author, Chronicle staff writer Leslie Fulbright, intended:
The issue of affirmative action is divisive. Opponents like Connerly suggest it takes jobs from qualified white people, while proponents, such as civil rights groups, say the programs are necessary to promote ethnic diversity and eliminate inequalities.
First, and least important, I suspect a review of everything Ward Connerly has ever said about affirmative action would fail to find even one reference to his criticizing affirmative action because it “takes jobs from qualified white people.” It does do that at least sometimes, but qualified people fail to get jobs all the time. There is no problem simply because qualified people don’ t get hired; the problem, and constitutional offense, is when they are not hired because of their race. And, I’m sure Connerly would say, providing “ethnic diversity” in the workplace and elsewhere is not a great enough good to justify the constitutional offense.
More significant is the loaded assertion that “the issue of affirmative action is divisive.” The implication here — an implication re-enforced by the preponderance of quotes in the remainder of the article criticizing Connerly — is that it is the critics of affirmative action who are responsible for the divisiveness. This is rather like saying that the abolitionists were “divisive” for objecting so vociferously to slavery. Well, yes, they were. But wasn’t the more significant divisiveness introduced by the presence of slavery, not the moral objection to it?
Some of the criticism reproduced here is familiarly silly. Thus David Waymire, the hapless leader of One United Michigan, the umbrella group that opposed ending race preferences, is quoted as follows:
David Waymire, a spokesman for a coalition that fought Connerly’s Michigan campaign, said Connerly has been effective because he convinces people that his initiative will remove discrimination. Waymire said Connerly — who is paid an undisclosed salary by the American Civil Rights Institute, the Sacramento group he founded to lead state initiative campaigns — moves on before seeing the consequences of the measures he promotes.
Well, once again, yes. Connerly has been successful in convincing people that an initiative to remove discrimination will remove discrimination because, in fact, it will remove discrimination. And as for the ridiculous assertion that Connerly “moves on before seeing the consequences of the measures he promotes” after sowing his mischief of equality, perhaps Waymire hasn’t noticed that Connerly lived in California before Prop. 209 … and still lives in California.
Let many Michigans bloom!
John writes:
>>>”Certainly the voters of Michigan have put some forceful winds in the sails of those of us who would like to see discrimination ended in all states.”
Why do you keep repeating this rhetoric, John? You KNOW that these pro-white-think-tank-funded schemes don’t “end discrimination in all states.” All they really do is FURTHER REDUCE MINORITY OPPORTUNITIES in an already demonstrably discriminatory environment against minorities.
Hiding behind the US Constitution (which also supported slavery in the past) and the whims of predominantly white male SCOTUS decisions doesn’t change the results of such policies.
Ward Connerly doesn’t seem to care about these results because, apparently, he’s getting PAID extemely well not to care. That’s why you can have an alleged African-American man (though he only claims to be “1/4 black”) shaking hands with the leader of the Michigan Chapter of Council of Conservative Citizens, a racial separatist group.
http://www.cofcc.org/index.php?start_from=15&ucat=&archive=&subaction=&id=&
And then of course…
>>>””If the Ku Klux Klan thinks that equality is right, God bless them,” Connerly says. “Thank them for finally reaching the point where logic and reason are being applied, instead of hate.”
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061104/POLITICS01/611040362/1022/POLITICS
Got another question on what Connerly’s mindset is?
And lookee here…apparently Jennifer Gratz herself is now on the payroll…
>>>”Gratz, whose lawsuit over race-based admissions policies at the University of Michigan helped propel the state into the middle of the affirmative action debate, said she will join Connerly’s California-based American Civil Rights Institute and expects to work on the issue full-time.
Gratz confirmed the states where petition drives and ballot proposals are most likely. Those states are: Oregon, South Dakota, Nevada, Nebraska, Missouri, Arizona and Colorado.”
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=66813
…which as ol’ Ward could tell you, ain’t hard on the wallet:
>>>”Total Grants to American Civil Rights Institute:
Total $ Granted: $5,190,000
For Years: 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997
# Grants: 47″
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=14
How about that? You can stifle minority progress AND most likely get paid well for your trouble. Not bad for a home coming queen from Southgate, MI who suffered the gross indignity of being wait-listed at the U of M.
Don’t get me wrong. This white backlash movement isn’t entirely fecundiary. As the voting results in Michigan proved, there are plenty of white folks, particularly men, of all classes extremely eager to join in on the locust-like plagues of Connerly and Gratz. And of course, they’re attacking Western states where white majorities will certainly aid their cause.
It’s time to end the chicanery and subterfuge.
–Cobra
True, these initiatives won’ put an end to all discrimination. But wherever they pass they will outlaw the only remaining racial discrimination that is both sanctioned and practiced by the states.
Well, Cobra, I guess if these initiatives are “pro-white,” then it would be logical to conclude that you’re anti-white.
David writes:
>>>”Well, Cobra, I guess if these initiatives are “pro-white,” then it would be logical to conclude that you’re anti-white.”
America has been “pro-white” and specifically, “pro-white male” since it’s enception. Read the original draft of the Constitution if you doubt what I’m saying. Read any non-revisionist account of American history. Taking a stand against initiatives designed to amplify that white male dominance and power in a nation already dominated by white male power is not being “anti-white.” It’s simply taking into account the fact that America is NOT an homogenous entity; that the rights of non-whites and non-white-males do INDEED matter.
So that’s why when John writes:
>>>”True, these initiatives won’ put an end to all discrimination. But wherever they pass they will outlaw the only remaining racial discrimination that is both sanctioned and practiced by the states.”
He’s making a conscious judgement on which type of racial discrimination must be urgently addressed. In this case, he chooses that which in his estimation affects a minute fraction of whites in an intractably white male dominated society in every other facet of government, industry, commerce, material wealth and law.
Do you feel the same way, David?
–Cobra