I have written several times about the “dramatically duplicitous attempt of Robin Carnahan, Missouri’s Democratic Secretary of State, to defeat the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative by rewriting it into oblivion.” (See also here and here.) Now comes Mariso Bello, writing in USA Today, who commits a similar Carnahanian transgression.
Writing of the initiatives now underway in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri to amend those state constitutions to ban discrimination or preferences based on race, ethnicity, and gender, Bello writes that this effort
has turned in signatures in Oklahoma, but is stalled in Missouri in a court dispute over language. Connerly’s language says the state shall not discriminate or grant preferences based on race, sex or ethnicity. The language substituted by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan goes further and says the initiative would end programs that provide equal opportunities for women and minorities.
Actually, Carnahan’s proposed language goes even “further” than the USA Today reporter reports. It asks whether the Missouri constitution should be amended to
ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education….
Note that “designed to.” What about programs that in fact benefited some racial groups more than others but were not “designed to” do that?
First, as I’ve already pointed out, Carnahan’s legal obligation as Secretary of State is to prepare ballot language for any proposed initiative that is “true and impartial” and that is “neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice.” Can anyone, other than a Democratic lawyer, argue that Carnahan’s substitute language meets that legal test? If her language really does go “further” than that proposed by the circulators of the proposed initiative, then she has gone “further” than the law allows.
Setting aside mere legal obligations (as Secretary Carnahan has clearly done), in what sense can it be said that her language “goes further” than that proposed by the initiative’s sponsors:
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting?
Does go “further” in the direction proposed by the initiative’s sponsor? Does it go “further” protecting individuals from discrimination based on their race? If so, how does it do that? In barring only race/ethnic/sex preferences that are “designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities [emphasis added],” does it eliminate all race/ethnic/sex preference programs, or only some of them? If only some, how does it go “further”?
I think USA Today and its staff writer need to engage in some further study of this issue.
Living in Missouri, I find Carnahan’s language political. She has put her opinion into the ballot language and this should hopefully be over ruled. Whether or not these programs help is an opinion, not a fact. Many people including myself feel these programs do more harm than good. Carnahan is trying her best to delay this issue as much as possible and might possibly succeed in preventing it from being on the ballot through her underhanded actions.
John,
Do you believe that Affirmative-Action programs “improve opportunities for women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education” as Secretary Carnahan’s language states?
If you don’t, then you’re in stark denial of the crux of your own blog.
If you do, then you again seem to have a problem with the FRAMING of this argument.
If you’re so confident in the beliefs and the principles you claim to stand for, and the well-funded campaigns you and your anti-affirmative action type allies march forward with, then the language on the ballot shouldn’t matter.
You should at least have the intellectual honesty to try to win without having to hoodwink or hornswoggle people.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Imagine there was a law on the books that said that I, and I alone, could rape your wife with impunity. Let’s say that this would bring me “happiness.”
Then, after doing this for 20 years, someone comes along and proposes to pass another law saying that I could not do this, with wording saying that I cannot rape your wife.
Would you be willing to have the ballot language read:
“This law’s primary purpose would be to deny a citizen of this great state the ability to pursue happiness”
How’s that for framing?
Cobra – I nearly always disagree with your comments, but I rarely regard them as silly, which this one is. The language of the proposed civil rights initiatives could not be clearer. In fact, you can’t even describe Carnahan’s substitute accurately. Her’s would have the initiative eliminate only “affirmative action” programs “designed” to improve opportunities for women and minorities. What about programs explicitly “designed” to promote diversity, not to help selected racial and ethnic groups? Do Carnahan really think (No) that the initiative’s proposers, whose intent she is bound by law to follow, intend for those “diversity” program to remain untouched?
I would resent your assertions of lack of intellectual honesty if I thought you provided any evidence whatsoever that a reasonable person could take seriously.
Carnahan is elevating her personal political opinions over the will of the people. This is incredible arrogance.
I suspect that the signers of the petitions knew exactly what they wanted to accomplish… the end of racial and sexual quotas.
Carnahan obviously wants to enforce racial and sexual quotas. She is attempting to circumvent the right of the people to vote on these issues.
This is such a clear cut case of administrative arrogance that I think it warrants an effort to remove this woman from office.
I don’t care about improving the opportunities for women and minorities. Women and minorities don’t deserve a single opportunity not accorded to a white, hetero male.
Cobra’s definition of equality is… he gets over. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. I’m tired of the grandiose language he uses to try to disguise what is really sheer greed on his part. Cobra’s just grabbing for everything he can get. Race hustling doesn’t earn you a halo.
John writes:
>>>”Her’s would have the initiative eliminate only “affirmative action” programs “designed” to improve opportunities for women and minorities. What about programs explicitly “designed” to promote diversity, not to help selected racial and ethnic groups? Do Carnahan really think (No) that the initiative’s proposers, whose intent she is bound by law to follow, intend for those “diversity” program to remain untouched?”
Well, John…I know you think my comment was “silly”, but you and I both know what the heart of this matter is. It’s all about RACE and GENDER, and how American Government and Society consider them.
As I’ve said before, I, and many like me believe there is STILL racism and sexism in America, neccessitating the use of race and gender based preference programs like Affirmative Action. They improve opportunities inspite of indisputable race and gender discrimination.
Conversely, there are many on your side that hold Stephen’s view:
>>>”I don’t care about improving the opportunities for women and minorities.”
Now, you have the Constitutional right to believe anything you like, or spin something fetid into something more appealing, but the bottom line is that Ward Connerly’s scheme is to destroy the kind of Affirmative Action, which “improves opportunities for women and minorities.”
Robin Carnahan simply spells it out for the public.
>>>”Carnahan spokeswoman Mindy Mazur strongly disagreed. The summary statement as it exists in its current form fulfills the secretary’s statutory requirements and is devoid of any terminology that would prejudice prospective voters one way or the other, she said.
“The constitutional amendment, if passed, would ban affirmative action programs, and that’s why it’s in the summary statement,” Mazur said in an interview.
“I understand the priority of the backers is to get the amendment passed, but our obligation is to follow the law and to make sure Missouri voters always have a fair, accurate, concise summary of what they’re voting on regardless of the issue,” she stated.”
http://www.missouricri.org/article_08_20_07.html
Tim Asher, executive director of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, begrudgingly admitted the TRUTH:
>>>”Although he is not irrevocably opposed to including the term “affirmative action” in the ballot language, Asher told Cybercast News Service a qualifying statement is needed, making it clear the amendment would only target those programs that are “infused” with racial preferences.”
http://www.missouricri.org/article_08_20_07.html
As I said before John, this is about FRAMING the argument.
>>>”Affirmative action proponents across the country say they’re ready. They’ve learned from the Michigan campaign that they have to fight for ballot language that clearly explains what “yes” and “no” votes mean.
“Here, the way the ballot language was phrased gave a lot of cover to whites,” said the Rev. Dan Krichbaum, executive director of the Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion, an education and advocacy group. “It was phrased as if we live in a colorblind society and need to protect it.”
http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=258&limit=750&limit2=1500&page=2
That’s some kind of racket Connerly and his acolytes are running, huh?
I just don’t understand, however, Connerly’s and apparently your lack of faith in the white majority voting block to pull through with the real guts of these initiatives laid out on the table for all to see.
Perhaps Reverend Krichbaum is onto something.
ACF writes:
>>>”Imagine there was a law on the books that said that I, and I alone, could rape your wife with impunity. Let’s say that this would bring me “happiness.”
Then, after doing this for 20 years, someone comes along and proposes to pass another law saying that I could not do this, with wording saying that I cannot rape your wife.
Would you be willing to have the ballot language read:
“This law’s primary purpose would be to deny a citizen of this great state the ability to pursue happiness”
How’s that for framing?”
That’s not an apt metaphor for this issue. There are topics regarding rape and the criminal justice system that would make a fascinating discussion here at Discriminations, but certainly not the way you framed it.
–Cobra
Here’s what my comment really said, Cobra, before you typed your lie:
“I don’t care about improving the opportunities for women and minorities. Women and minorities don’t deserve a single opportunity not accorded to a white, hetero male.”
By excising the second statement, you’ve attempted to make it appear that I am a opponent of equal opportunity for women and minorities. Do you think that people are unable to read?
White, hetero men have the right to the same opportunities as women and minorities. Your constant argument for superior rights for women and minorities is sexist and racist. You will be defeated over the long haul by the American people. You and Carnahan are fighting a rear guard, reactionary war against the decency, goodwill and common sense of the electorate. Let’s get this straight. You don’t represent the good and the just. You represent the crazy, corrupted sense of entitlement engendered by welfare and quotas.
As I said, when it comes to intellectual dishonesty, you take the cake. You have the mentality of a welfare queen, par excellance. If you aren’t accorded superior rights to white men, you feel cheated. There is no other way to end your insistence on welfare and quota entitlement than to simply tell you: “No. You can’t have any more of my stuff. You’ve already gotten all the welfare and quotas you’ll ever get.”
Now, Cobra, when are you going to own up to your con game? You can’t con me. The day when you could con any white man with your welfare and quota demands is close at hand. Get your hand out of my pocket.
Cobra wrote:
Cobra’s strategy of racial preferences as a counterweight to insidious racism and sexism doesn’t seem destined to ever get us to a point of practicing non-discrimination.
Those supposed victims of actual discrimination aren’t being compensated by racial preferences. They don’t hold discrimination receipts that can be turned in for individually-recognized racial preferences. The beneficiaries are merely people who look like the actual victims of discrimination. Individuals aren’t given any justice, it is awarded unevenly within the demographic group. It isn’t fairness at an individual level, it only appears fair if we draw way back and judge at the demographic group level. Would you accept the attitude that institutions don’t have to be fair to you individually, but only need to be fair to your demographic group?
Secondly, even well-intentioned racial preferences has the effect of promoting more discrimination from individuals rather than extinguishing discrimination. The more institutions deign to confer second-class treatment on unfavored individuals, the more these individuals feel justified to enact their own compensatory justice on the favored class. Actual discrimination against minorities will be internally justified due to their perceived unjustly favored treatment.
We hold the reasonable expectation that each one of us holds the same civil rights as everyone else. We’re not willing to “take one for the team” since life is an individual sport. We are willing to pay for our own individual sins, but not for some demographic group that doesn’t pool and equally share its resources with every individual within the group. We’re on our own baby! We neither expect benefits due to our demographics, nor are we willing to pay a tax based on our demographics.
Even beneficient discrimination breeds more discrimination. Racial preferences will not eradicate insidious discrimination, it will enflame it. Consequently, we won’t get to a point where racial preferences can be pulled back because there is no more insidious discrimination. We’ll be condemned to continue compensatory discrimination in the face of insidious discrimination which will only appear fair at the group level. The actual victims of insidious discrimination won’t be the beneficiaries of the compensatory discrimination. Do groups really matter more than individuals do?
As John Roberts wrote: “The way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating”. That appears to be the only approach that might work in the long run.
Eddy writes:
>>>”Cobra’s strategy of racial preferences as a counterweight to insidious racism and sexism doesn’t seem destined to ever get us to a point of practicing non-discrimination.”
This isn’t a “chicken or egg” topic. I believe that the government should use racial and gender preferences because Americans use racial and gender preferences OUTSIDE of government.
eddy writes:
>>>”Those supposed victims of actual discrimination aren’t being compensated by racial preferences. They don’t hold discrimination receipts that can be turned in for individually-recognized racial preferences. The beneficiaries are merely people who look like the actual victims of discrimination. Individuals aren’t given any justice, it is awarded unevenly within the demographic group.”
Well, you’re arguing that government sponsored race and gender preferences are some sort of a “punishment” or “retaliation”. I would ask you in return what you would consider non-government sponsored race and gender preferences to be?
How would your definition of non-government race and gender preferences fit into your views here:
>>>”We’re not willing to “take one for the team” since life is an individual sport. We are willing to pay for our own individual sins…”
Since you haven’t addressed any remedies or solutions for non-government race and gender preferences, aren’t you asking the victims of “insidious discrimination” to do just that? “Take one for the team?”
Do you consider non-government race and gender preferences “sin”, and what is the “cost” you would have individuals pay for committing them?
These are all, IMHO, important questions one should answer before even discussing the elimination of Affirmative Action.
Polyanna idioms from Chief Justice John Roberts just reminds me of how this Reagan Administration lawyer is trapped in a “Just Say No” time warp.
–Cobra
Cobra — Last time I checked, the remedy for racial discrimination against minorities was civil litigation. Sue the miscreants if you can prove discrimination. This is the solution for every other perceived wrong committed in society from sexual harrassment to financial fraud. You seem to want to excuse racial discrimination from the same burden of proof required of every other claimed offense.
I did suggest the only practical long term solution — make non-discrimination not merely an ennuciated rule but an absolutely enforced rule. No exceptions that swallow the rule as where “diversity” desires allow discrimination against whites or males. These pretend laws against discrimination promotes the resentment that forms the basis of invidious discrimination. People don’t buy “do as I say, not as I do” advice. People recognize that the current rules against discrimination are frauds to the extent that they do allow whites, males, and heterosexuals to be openly discriminated against.
Today, the Irish get along with the Italians because there aren’t either official or covert policies that favor either group. Perhaps whites and blacks will eliminate biasness towards each other when blacks are willing to take off the training wheels of preferential treatment and stop blindly blaming whites for all their self-inflicted problems.
The way to get beyond race is to make it less important, not more important.
Cobra said, “This isn’t a “chicken or egg” topic. I believe that the government should use racial and gender preferences because Americans use racial and gender preferences OUTSIDE of government.”
One wrong does not justify another wrong. That’s plain and simple. Your sense of entitlement based on your “black” race and your support of preferential treatment based on race will eventually come back and bite you and your ilk in the long term, and this will hurt tremendously.
Race and ethnic preferences did not worked in Nazi Germany or in present day Bosnia and they won’t work in today’s America, INSIDE or OUTSIDE of the American government. Race preferences never worked in world history.