An article in the Madison, Wisconsin, Capital Times by columnist Joel McNally unwittingly provides a good example of why pro-preference forces are so unpopular and thus regularly lose elections.
Here’s how it begins, which is all I’m going to quote from it since it’s all you need to know about what it says:
Inviting Ward Connerly to speak to a special Wisconsin legislative committee studying affirmative action is like inviting the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan to address a hearing on race relations.
Connerly is a black man who has received millions of dollars from Milwaukee’s Bradley Foundation and other right-wing organizations to travel the country opposing affirmative action for black people.
It’s not really accurate to call Connerly an opponent of affirmative action. He’s actually a vociferous advocate in favor of affirmative action for white people….
McNally obviously believes that 58% of the voters in Michigan are either vile racists or dumb dupes of racists. All those who believe no one should be given benefits or burdens based on race take that position because they “really want whites first.”
I assume that McNally is not nationally syndicated, but I wish he were. One of the best ways to win people over to the pro-equality/anti-preference position is to show them what the preferentialists think of them.
UPDATE [1 January 2007]
For a different view of Connerly, see this excellent column by syndicated columnist Reuben Navarrette Jr. (Did I say that Navarrette is a “minority” journalist? I hope not, since I’m usually offended by such labeling.)
It begins:
As an African American opposed to affirmative action, Ward Connerly has grown accustomed to being despised by his own kind for doing his own thinking.
… and then gets better. Read the whole thing.
Navarrette presents a useful reminder (at least it will be a reminder, not news, to regular DISCRIMINATIONS readers) that California’s Proposition 209 actually reduced the number of whites admitted to the University of California, thus undermining the argument that whites oppose racial preferences to minorities only out of racial self-interest.
Black students weren’t the only group to see their numbers at UC go down when racial preferences were scuttled. Whites also suffered. Yes, whites. White students now account for about 32 percent of the freshman class at UC campuses, down from almost 40 percent 10 years ago.
Enrollment figures went up for Asian Americans and Hispanics. Asians now account for about 42 percent of the UC freshman class, up from 36 percent a decade ago. Hispanics now make up just over 16 percent, up from 13 percent.
Navarrette concludes:
If this trend keeps up, people may start to clamor for targeted outreach efforts and preferential treatment for white students to give them a leg up in competing with Asians.
That sounds familiar.
Indeed it does. It’s the familiar old racial self-interest standard that preferentialists accuse their opponents of practicing even as they practice it themselves.
McNally is obviously schooled in the theories of “White Privilege” and “Critical Race.”
The cretin.
John writes:
>>>”McNally obviously believes that 58% of the voters in Michigan are either vile racists or dumb dupes of racists. All those who believe no one should be given benefits or burdens based on race take that position because they “really want whites first.””
Why didn’t you address what Mr. McNally wrote? Why didn’t you refute the statements about that “professional Black Conservative”, Ward Connerly? As a matter of fact, they’re some of the same things that I’ve repeatedly brought up here at “Discriminations.”
In fact, according to McNally…
>>>”The Bradley Foundation recently gave a quarter of a million dollar bonus to Connerly as a reward for his successful campaign in Michigan to get voters to approve dismantling affirmative action for anyone who is not already a privileged white. ”
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=113024&ntpid=0
I actually agree with you here, John. There should be MORE exposure. There should be MORE coverage. There should be MORE articles about WHO is REALLY behind these anti-affirmative action measures, and what OTHER shennannigans are in the works. There should be MORE accounting done on who’s getting RICH over these anti-minority measures. I would certainly like to know how much certain MCRI figures were PAID for this vicious attack on minority progress in Michigan.
–Cobra
Cobra:
If the actual language of the MCRI said what your colorful rhetoric continues erroneously to suggest it says, I would actually take you much more seriously.
It doesn’t so, I don’t take you seriously at all.
Cobra,
If you look at the article the claim is that all affirmative action admits were fully qualified even though they fail at a higher rate and drop out at a higher rate.
The real test is if race was left off of their applications would they still be admitted and every college admission program review has showed that they admit black applicants with qualifications which would not have gotten them admitted if they had checked “white” on their applications.
In other words, if an application fails the “shannon Faulkner” test then that is prima facia evidence that the university discriminates.
Actually, Cobra, that quarter million from Bradley came a year ago, long before MCRI won the election, so it can’t be a “bonus”. Of course, it came after the signature-collection, I believe, so maybe it was a “bonus” for that.
Who cares. People make money doing many things. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, nothing wrong with making money doing what you enjoy. If you could prove Ward really didn’t believe, you’d have a case of something (along the “sellout” lines). In fact, tens of thousands of other blacks hold an opinion identical to Ward’s and make no money whatsoever off the opinion!!!! Sure, they’re an 80-20 minority within their “community,” but their numbers are shocking to those who believe all blacks must think alike (BAMN, U-M, etc.).
And many on “your side” make money defending and expanding preferences. DiversityInc.com strikes me as one of many obvious ones.
Should Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton give back all their money. How much are they paid for their “vicious” programs of dependency and group-identity politics? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander (and indeed, if you want to open up records of non-profits across the board, and the reform truly cuts both directions and isn’t a unilateral exposure of one side, I’ll personally support that reform – but until you change it all, I’m against unilateral disarmament).
Your argument is laughable when analyzed closely.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>”Who cares. People make money doing many things. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, nothing wrong with making money doing what you enjoy.”
There are SOOOOO many examples I could throw up here. But I’m not going there because the analogies are too easy. You’re a smart man. You understand the images conjured up when you defend all types of IMHO– wanton, self-gratifying behavior for money.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>”In fact, tens of thousands of other blacks hold an opinion identical to Ward’s and make no money whatsoever off the opinion!!!!”
People are entitled to hold any opinion they like in America. African-Americans are not exempt from this entitlement. Hell, there were thousands of blacks who fought for the CONFEDERACY, most of them ALSO for FREE. My low opinion of THEM isn’t radically different from my opinion of the other group you mentioned.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>”Should Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton give back all their money. How much are they paid for their “vicious” programs of dependency and group-identity politics?”
Which Proposition or Legislation did Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton design that you’re upset with?
As far as group-identity politics? Hello–America was founded upon “group identity politics.” That you’re only upset when CERTAIN groups practice it tells me you’re just another example of “Cobra Argument #2: Selective Outrage.”
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>”The real test is if race was left off of their applications would they still be admitted and every college admission program review has showed that they admit black applicants with qualifications which would not have gotten them admitted if they had checked “white” on their applications.”
Nonsense. You’re implying that every non-black student on college campuses are imminently qualified to be there, with no further questions asked. Do you want to go back down that dark road again with me about the complexity of the admission process?
vnjagvet writes:
>>>”If the actual language of the MCRI said what your colorful rhetoric continues erroneously to suggest it says, I would actually take you much more seriously.
It doesn’t so, I don’t take you seriously at all.”
If you think that Proposition 2 won’t have serious, negative consequences for the minority population of the state of Michigan…one of the most segregated states in the Union, already RIFE with anti-minority discrimination according to EEOC and Housing reports, then you’re fooling yourself, no matter how “seriously” you take anything I post here.
No think-tank had to pay me to say that.
–Cobra
Ward’s victory, indeed a victory for all (including self respecting blacks), certainly has sent a shiver through the pro preference forces. Cobra’s are not the only tantrums flying across the webpages.
What a great way to start the new year, knowing that more and more Americans will no longer be judged by the color of their skin. Martin Luther King would be so proud of Ward for bringing dignity back to the civil rights movement.
“If you think that Proposition 2 won’t have serious, negative consequences for the minority population of the state of Michigan”
Heck, the 13th amendment had serious, negative consequences for slave owners. Is that a defense of slavery?
When you’re the beneficiary of institutionalized racism, color blind policies are of course going to have “negative consequences”. Just like the racist policies Prop. 2 banned had “negative consequences” for other people, who weren’t on the list of approved minorities who got discriminated in favor of.
In fact, studies of a similar proposition in California showed that racial admissions and their end had virtually no effect on “white” enrollment. The primary victim of racial quotas at schools were asians.
But I guess asians aren’t a “minority” here in Michigan, right?
If you think that Proposition 2 won’t have serious, negative consequences for the minority population of the state of Michigan … then you’re fooling yourself.
In fact, I suspect this is the nub of the difference between supporters and opponents of preferences. The standard by which supporters evaluate everything is whether or not it is good for minorities. Nothing that is good for minorities can, by definition, be bad, illegal, or unconstitutional. Nothing that is bad for minorities can be good, legal, or constitutional. Moreover, they assume that everyone uses this same “standard,” which is why they believe that anyone who opposes preferences to minorities based on their race does so because they want to do harm to minorities.
This argument has all the logic and moral force of, say, claiming that anyone who believes criminal defendants have rights that should be respected does so only out of a desire to impose additional harm and hardship on victims of crime.
Brett Bellmore writes:
>>>”Heck, the 13th amendment had serious, negative consequences for slave owners. Is that a defense of slavery?”
You’re comparing minorities in Michigan with slave owners?
Brett Bellmore writes:
>>>”In fact, studies of a similar proposition in California showed that racial admissions and their end had virtually no effect on “white” enrollment. The primary victim of racial quotas at schools were asians.”
Again, you’re limiting Affirmative Action to school admissions (a usual trick), ignoring the detrimental effect on African-Americans (another usual trick) and implying that the system was about “quotas” which were already illegal.
Brett Bellmore writes:
>>>”But I guess asians aren’t a “minority” here in Michigan, right?”
Sure they are. Why don’t you visit some Asian-American themed business and activist websites and find out if THEY are for or against Affirmative Action?
mikem writes:
>>>”Ward’s victory, indeed a victory for all (including self respecting blacks), certainly has sent a shiver through the pro preference forces.”
How is this a “victory” for “self-respecting blacks”? By now having them face the same discriminatory odds in Public and Government endeavors as they demonstrably face in the Private sector of Michigan? You’re one of those Anti-Affirmative Action types who doesn’t READ statistics, aren’t you?
Anyway, besides Ward, name some other “self-respecting blacks” who’d embrace the CC of C and the Ku Klux Klan. If you CAN name some, what’s the odds that there are some pro-white think-tank money behind them?
John writes:
>>>”This argument has all the logic and moral force of, say, claiming that anyone who believes criminal defendants have rights that should be respected does so only out of a desire to impose additional harm and hardship on victims of crime.”
You make some good points, however you must note that there are CONSTANT and highly volatile court battles over those rights. Look at the docket in 2006–Gitmo, torture, warrantless wire-tapping,suspension of habeus corpus, Miranda…etc.
I think one of the issues you have to stare clearly in the face, John is that there ARE plenty of people on your side of the issue who have ulterior motives regarding race. IMHO, based upon the statistics we see in the private sector regarding racial discrimination, it’s not a small group.
Why you seem surprised that I, as a conscious African-American, wouldn’t simply pick up a pitchfork and join the town mob for a self-flaggelatory
endeavor like eliminating Affirmative-Action is beyond me.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Even if the anti-AA crowd has ulterior motives, it is obvious that the pro-AA crowd has several ulterior motives including anit-white racism, bigotry, and the desire to get government benefits at a discount.
Even study and ever court case has shown that blacks are getting admitted to universities, being hired by the government, and being awarded government contracts that they would have never received if they were not a government approved minorities.
In the end, the pro-AA crowd it acting like the pro-Jim Crow crowd, acting like a bunch of racist bigots.
Cobra:
I for one do not expect you to simply join the endeavor to eliminate affirmative action.
I am an old white guy and I still favor affirmative action.
But, like John, I favor (and have used in my businesses) the affirmative action that was used when I worked for government contractors in the days of JFK and Lyndon Johnson.
That type of affirmative action requires the hard work of active recruiting where minority candidates are found, developing relationships with minority professors and admissions directors or with professors and admissions directors who actively mentor minority candidates, as well as mentoring a good group of minority employees who can be a critical mass within your organization.
It does not mean reducing the qualification requirements of minority employees or candidates.
That, in my opinion, simply demeans all of the employees, including minorities,and shortchanges the employer and its customers.
“…I, as a conscious African-American, wouldn’t simply pick up a pitchfork and join the town mob for a self-flaggelatory
endeavor like eliminating Affirmative-Action is beyond me.”
Heh. That is precisely what white Americans did, in the name of equality and human dignity.
Time to grow up, Cobra. Tick tock, tick tock.
Cobra,
Why don’t you just work for rewards, instead of stealing it with affirmative discrimination?
Asians seem to have figured out how to do this, usually in much less than a generation. What is your excuse?
Why do you think so many Asians work so hard, perform so well on merit-based metrics, and have so much determination. Hell, many of them don’t even speak English as their first language.
Meanwhile, blacks “need” affirmative discrimination to survive?
That’s about as factual as most of your other assertions, Cobra. There were no blacks who fought for the confederacy. From time to time, people (mostly neo-confederate apologists) have made such claims; scholars have never been able to document this. (There were black slaves attached to Confederate units as cooks and servants and such, but no soldiers.)
john said: “Navarrette presents a useful reminder (at least it will be a reminder, not news, to regular DISCRIMINATIONS readers) that California’s Proposition 209 actually reduced the number of whites admitted to the University of California, thus undermining the argument that whites oppose racial preferences to minorities only out of racial self-interest.”
uh, no it doesn’t, John, and i’m kinda surprised you’d say something like this. white voters may have thought that prop 209 would end up boosting white enrollment at the Univ of CA. i mean, were they supposed to know that eliminating preferences for minorities would decrease white enrollment? (this point may have already been made; i didn’t read every single comment)
David writes:
>>>”There were no blacks who fought for the confederacy. From time to time, people (mostly neo-confederate apologists) have made such claims; scholars have never been able to document this. (There were black slaves attached to Confederate units as cooks and servants and such, but no soldiers.)”
Sigh.
I’ve been in South Carolina on business, and the long detailed post I made in reply to you didn’t get through John’s filter.
Anyway, I’m home now, so….
>>>” In January 1865, Robert E. Lee gave his powerful support in a letter to Andrew Hunter of Virginia. Lee proposed that all slaves who were willing to enlist be freed and armed. “We must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced on our social institutions,” he wrote. “My own opinion is that we should employ them without delay.” Lee also felt that if the action had been taken at the beginning of the war, black assistance might have been decisive.
On February 18, 1865, the Confederate Congress finally authorized the enlistment of Southern slaves “to provide additional forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possession of the Confederate States, secure their independence and preserve their institutions.” One instituion they would not be preserving was that of slavery. No matter which side won, slavery was now as good as dead. Surprisingly, the Southern army accepted black soldiers as equals. By order of March 23, 1865, the black Confederates were to “receive the same ration, clothing, and compensation as allowed other troops in the same branch of service.”
The enlistment of slaves into the Confederate Army began almost at once. Soon, black soldiers were drilling in the streets of Richmond, and the Confederate War Department was being deluged with requests for the authority to raise more. On March 21, 1865, the Richmond Sentinal reported that the battalion from Camps Winder and Jackson, including “the company of colored troops under Captain Grimes,” would parade on the square. Three days later, the newspaper informed its readers that “the Negro brigade being raised by Majors Pegram and Turner, is being rapidly filled up.”
The black companies were provided with new uniforms and marched through the city to encourage more to enlist. Black units were also recruited in the deep South, and a worried Ulysses S. Grant wrote to Maj. Gen. Edward R.S. Canby at Mobile to “get all the Negro men we can before the enemy puts them into their ranks.” However, the Southern leaders had waited far too long. The war would be over before the black Confederates could have any effect on the outcome.”
http://www.civilwarhistory.com/slavetrade/blacksoldiersCSA.htm
There are other accounts of actual fighting here….
http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html
And this irony of ironies, with the founder of the Ku Klux Klan…
>>>”11-12 April 1864, Fort Pillow, Tennessee: A Confederate force under Lt. General Nathan Bedford Forrest surrounds the Union garrison at Fort Pillow, Tennessee. About half of the Union troops are black, the other half are white Tennessee Unionists. Forrest, upon learning of the passage of the Barksdale bill, had freed his own slaves and recruited most of them into his command.19 He now issues a proclamation and has it read in front of the Union lines, under a flag of truce, by Private Louis Napoleon Nelson, a black trooper in Forrest’s command.20 The Proclamation states that the life of any Union Negro soldier who surrenders and takes an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy will be spared, and all such men will be accepted, should they be willing to volunteer, as enlistees in the Confederate army. But, ominously, the Proclamation also states that Forrest cannot be responsible for what might happen to those “traitors” who continue to serve as “Hessian mercenaries against their own country.” During the course of the night almost all of the Union Negro troops desert to the Confederate lines. The Union commander, Major Booth, upon discovering this the next morning, decides to surrender the post without further resistance. Forrest, true to his word, enlists most of the former-Union Negroes into his command, where they serve honorably. Forrest will later write of them, “Better Confederates did not live.”2”
http://www.geocities.com/robertp6165/blackconfederatetimeline.html
David, we go way back on this blog. You may not like my rhetoric, but you gotta know by now that when it comes to backing up my points, I’m the “link-master general.”
–Cobra
To Cobra: You might be interested to know that my website is devoted to a form of fiction called “alternate history,” which is a genre of science fiction in which one speculates on what might have occurred if certain events in history had gone differently. You have a link to this site…specifically to a timeline based on the supposition that the Cleburne Memorial was not suppressed and thus the South enlisted slaves into it’s armed forces beginning in March 1864…a year earlier than in real history…included in your January 3, 2007 post. Just to make it perfectly clear, the events you quoted from my article DID NOT happen in real history. They are a speculation on what MIGHT have happened had the Cleburne Memorial not been suppressed.
Robert Perkins
aka robertp6165