Conservatives Continue Mean Anti-Affirmative Action Campaign

Before this weekend' SB 185 veto by Gov. Jerry Brown, which would have opened the door for UC administrators to consider race, gender and other issues in the admissions process, Ward Connerly, the king of anti-affirmative action initiatives, showed up on the UC Berkeley campus to bless the "Increase Diversity Bake Sale,' and grab a few more minutes in the spotlight.

You're Ward Connerly. You were once a member of the University of California Board of Regents. You were the King of Anti-Affirmative Action initiatives; chiefly responsible for the 1996 California Civil Rights Initiative (Prop. 209) which passed with 54% of the vote. A year later, you founded, and became the chairman of, the Sacramento, California-based American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI). In 2003, you placed Proposition 54 on the ballot, an initiative which aimed to prohibit the government from classifying any person by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin, except for medical purposes, and which the voters rejected. You showed up all over the country pushing anti-affirmative action initiatives. You became a darling of the conservative movement; called by some, "the champion of equality."

You're Ward Connerly. In 2006 your Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, a measure banning affirmative action in state "hiring, contracting, and admissions to public schools" passed by 58-42 percent. Two years later, however, your anti-affirmative action campaigns came to a screeching halt, as your Super Tuesday for Equal Rights campaign, which the Colorado Independent called "a nationwide thrust to dismantle affirmative action programs in five states," failed dismally. "In three of those states, [Connerly's] measure failed to make it onto the ballot, and [on the] Thursday [after election day] ... it collapsed in Colorado. Nebraska was the only state ... to approve the proposal," The Colorado Independent reported.

In an interview with The Colorado Independent shortly after the 2008 election, "Connerly said that he might curb his 12-year-long effort, which produced wins in California, Michigan and Washington state in years past and in Nebraska this year. 'Well, I love to read. I love to write. I do have other interests,' he said. 'I would like to pursue those things. I would rather do those things than get involved in these initiatives.'

"'Contrary to what is said, I don't need this for my financial well-being. I don't need it for my psychological well-being,' he added, referring to an allegation that he paid himself $7 million from the two nonprofits that funded his Super Tuesday for Equal Rights campaign. Connerly spent more than $350,000 in Colorado this year, according to campaign finance reports."

In 2006, according to The Colorado Independent, Connerly's "salary totaled $1.6 million, a figure that prompted members of Congress to call for an investigation as to whether or not Connerly has excessively profited from his organizations."

You're Ward Connerly. You've never lacked funding for your mission. According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, "The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee gave Connerly $700,000 in 2001 for the anti-affirmative action campaign in California. That same year he got $200,000 from Richard Mellon Scaife, and another $150,000 from the Olin Foundation. In 2005, Connerly was named a 'Bradley Prize' honoree by the Bradley Foundation and awarded $250,000 by the right-wing foundation." Media Transparency reported that between 1997 and 2004, Connerly received nearly $3.8 million from ACRI.

You're Ward Connerly and you haven't been in the news for a while.

Now, you've been reduced to being the poster child for a racist bake sale.

Sheeesh!

On September 27, Ward Connerly's American Civil Rights Institute (http://www.acri.org/) issued a press release via Christian News Wire announcing that Connerly would be "joining the College Republicans on the campus of University of California, Berkeley today [September 27] in an effort to highlight the inequality and unfairness of affirmative action."

Connerly issued the following statement:

"In 1996, the people of California enshrined the principle of equal treatment for all Californians in their State Constitution. Since that time, there have been many attempts to circumvent the will of the people by allowing race and ethnic preferences in college admissions. SB185, an identical version of which was vetoed by former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on two occasions, is now on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown awaiting signature. Fortunately, for the people of California the Berkeley College Republicans are calling attention to this abuse of legislative power by their satirical 'Diversity Bake Sale.'

"I strongly support their efforts and will attend their event and sell baked goods alongside them as a measure of my support. It is unfortunate that Senator Ed Hernandez (author of SB 185) and the California Legislative Latino Caucus have such disregard for the people of California that they would take this back door action to thwart the will of the California electorate."

The cupcake sale, sponsored by the Berkeley College Republicans, was organized in part to draw attention away from a phone bank campaign aiming to support "a bill [SB 185 -- authored by state Senator Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina] on Gov. Jerry Brown's desk that would allow the UC and Cal State University systems to consider such factors, as long as no preference was given, in admissions," the Los Angeles Times reported.

"Under the bake sale's satirical pricing structure, whites were supposed to pay $2 for the same pastry that would cost Native Americans 25 cents," the newspaper pointed out.

There was a big demonstration on campus, Student Senators denounced the sale, people argued both for and against affirmative action, baked goods were sold, and, there was a lot of noise.

The Veto

On Saturday, October 8, California Governor Brown vetoed SB 185. Brown said that while he "wholeheartedly agree[d] with the goal of this legislation," and that Prop 209 "should be interpreted to allow UC and CSU to consider race and other relevant factors in their admissions policies to the extent permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution," he refused to sign the bill because "the courts - not the Legislature - [should] determine the limits of Proposition 209."

The Huffington Post reported on a statement released by Berkeley College Republicans President Shawn Lewis:

"On behalf of the Berkeley College Republicans, I am pleased with the governor's decision to veto this bill. SB 185 was an attempt to undermine the will of the voters who passed Proposition 209 in 1996. Indeed, a September 26 Survey USA poll showed that 77 percent of Californians opposed this specific piece of legislation. The people of California believe, as does the Berkeley College Republicans, that college admission decisions should be based on the qualifications of the applicant and the individual challenges he or she has faced, not based on his or her race. We are glad Governor Brown agrees and has chosen to respect the will of the voters."

Connerly indicated that he was happy with Brown's decision, especially since his lawyers would not have to sue the state.

The Road to the Future

Prior to Brown's veto, The Los Angeles Times, which editorialized against Proposition 209 in 1996, called SB 185 "a clear attempt to flout that initiative":

"We support that decision [a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of affirmative action at the University of Michigan's law school], and we continue to believe that affirmative action policies are both necessary and fair. But California voters do not agree, as they proved when they passed Proposition 209, which prohibits preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public education and the public sector. Much as we would like to see Proposition 209 repealed, the will of the people cannot be undone by a backdoor act of the Legislature. If Californians are unhappy with the effects of Proposition 209, they should go back to the polls and vote to re-legalize affirmative action or find other legitimate ways of encouraging diversity and fairness in public institutions. This page will support them.

"Historically underrepresented groups - mainly, African American and Latino students - should have a better chance at the affordable higher education that they were long denied. Fifteen years after Proposition 209 passed, the state still needs affirmative action. We understand the frustration of the initiative's opponents, after multiple losses in court. Yet as a matter of principle, we also object to flouting the will of the voters who placed the measure into the state Constitution."

In addition to bringing Ward Connerly back to the affirmative action/diversity battlefront, the Berkeley College Republicans' "Increase Diversity Bake Sale" once again brought national attention to one of the most vexing issues facing public university administrators; what steps should they take to broaden diversity on campus.

In a recent Wall Street Journal piece, Connerly wrote that the late conservative economist Milton Friedman told him that, "Freedom to compete fairly for university admissions, jobs and contracts is central to all that America professes to be." That would be a worthy notion if all students competed from the same starting point. No one in America can tell you with a straight face that poor and working class children - especially minorities -- have the same educational opportunities as middle and upper middle class kids.

ENDS

© Scoop Media