June 11, 2008
Barack Obama Comes Out Against Ward Connerly's Latest Campaigns
Ward Connerly—the former University of California regent, prominent affirmative action critic, and Republican activist—announced back in February that he had donated $500 to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign. In a subsequent Washington Post article, he said he had given Mr. Obama the money to honor him “for trying to take race out of the body politic.” He said the campaigns of Mr. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton show that there is no longer a need for affirmative-action preferences “to compensate for, quote, institutional racism and institutional sexism.”
Senator Obama, however, had already showed that he disagreed with Mr. Connerly on affirmative action, having appeared in a 2006 radio advertisement opposing Proposal 2, the Michigan ballot measure banning the use of racial, ethnic, and gender preferences by public colleges and other state and local agencies. (The measure passed overwhelmingly that fall.)
An article published in USA Today this week suggests that neither Mr. Connerly’s praise and donation nor the passage of time have done much to change Mr. Obama’s views. A spokeswoman for his campaign told DeWayne Wickham, a columnist for the newspaper, that Mr. Obama opposes Mr. Connerly’s efforts to get measures similar to Proposal 2 passed in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska this fall.
The spokeswoman, Candice Tolliver, is quoted as saying: “Sen. Obama believes in a country in which opportunity is available to all Americans, regardless of their race, gender or economic status. That’s why he opposes these ballot initiatives, which would roll back opportunity for millions of Americans and cripple efforts to break down historic barriers to the progress of qualified women and minorities.”
Peter Schmidt | Posted on Wednesday June 11, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Rock the Vote Generation Is Now Asked to Help Count It
Next: A New Blog Seeks to Give Voice to a Portion of the Youth Vote
To be fair to Ward Connerly—a very un-pc stance in academia—his criticism of affirmative action is horribly misunderstood. In the vernacular, he and other black conservatives have always likened affirmative action to Big House politics. Those familiar with the ante-Bellum term will understand its ramification; to wit, that letting a few slaves work in the house and “treating them like family,” was not sufficient compensation for working their brethern to death. Ruminate on this for a while and try to see where Connerly is coming from. Connerly believes that the same hand that opens the gate also closes the gate, and while liberals may be more inclined to open the gate, it is more odious that they set arbitrary criteria for closing the gate, leaving those to conclude that while liberal conscience can tolerate a few minorities, its latent racism will shut the gate when it feels uncomfortable in the midst of too many minorities.
— original marci Jun 11, 06:02 PM #
Most of the people agree with the idea of Mr. Ward Connerly. It is about time to stop affirmative action since it is hurting other capable students.
— kvc Jun 11, 10:08 PM #
USA affirmative action for caucasians from 1789 to 1964 = 175 years. USA affirmative Action for people of color from 1964 to 2008 = 40 years. Difficult to understand how this math adds up to affirmative action having run its course?
— moderate Jun 12, 07:53 AM #
To put it best, the late Senator Hubert Humphrey said, when the game has not been played on a level playing field for so long, something needs to be done to level the field. This is my belief as to the necessity of Affirmative Action. Also, the prime beneficiaries of AA has been white women. So, for the racists who regularly rant on these articles, let’s hear some screaming about that. If we are truly “all equal”, then the wrongs of the past must be reconciled, and AA is one way to do it. It may not be the only way, nor the best way, but at least it is an attempt.
— TT Jun 12, 11:01 AM #
For ‘moderate’ (#3), thank you for putting the matter very succinctly. After 175 years of affirmative action (sometimes with in-your-face approach) suddenly the benefactors of this 175 years of affirmative action thinkt it is a bad idea. Think of the GI Bill affirmative action and others of that type. It is unfortunate that people like Ward Connelly somehow gets half-educated about issues of race after they have used the same affirmative action to get to where they are now. Self-hatred could be one way of describing Connelly’s behavior.
On the other hand, those that continue to repeat this notion that affirmative action is discriminatory have failed to show how the CURRENT discriminatory practices can be dealt with other than saying simply “let everyone be treated equally”. What a fairy tale idea. If that were the case how come we are where we are now. After more than 200 years of racism and discrimination the idea of truly giving everyone equal opportunity in all aspects of the society still seems alien.
— AN Jun 12, 11:41 AM #
It’s nice to see the race card is alive and well (comment #4) amongst my colleagues. If you disagree with affirmative action you must be a “racist”…it couldn’t possibly be because you fundamentally feel AA is wrong. Injustice is not cured by more injustice and dumbing down the conversation with spurious rants of racism diminishes your position.
— William Hull Jun 12, 11:48 PM #
Failure to address the foundation —- and to concentrate instead on structural improvements —- is clearly geared towards limited outcomes.
Whilst the Math as presented by Moderate (#3) is somewhat meaningful —- yet in my opine it tends to obscure what can be done to speed-up the process.
The fundamental foundational issue in my opine is rooted in a class structure —- When the process of an individual’s initial education is dependent upon local property tax revenues, which in turn are a function of local property values, then the plans have been finalized —- ergo, the foundational parameters have been defined —- seeking structural improvements 12 years later has its obvious limitations.
Let us consider the collection of property taxes for the schools on a state-wide bases (vs. city/town basis) —- and allocate the same to all schools within the state fairly —- based on the number of pupils and size.
.
— zahid Jun 13, 08:25 AM #
I am not surprised in the least that Mr. Obama’s “post-racial” campaign has been exposed for what it is: a sham! Nor am I surprised by the real tragedy that makes this sham possible: the inability of Obama supporters to even recognize that their belief in a post racial, color-blind Barack Obama has just been shamelessly betrayed by their candidate.
Fed on a four-decade long diet of white guilt, minority preferences, multiculturalism, and cultural self-loathing, they no longer possess the intellectual capacity to discern what constitutes racism and discrimination: the act of giving preference to an individual or groups on the basis of immutable characteristics, such as race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin. To do so is practicing inequality and discrimination — no if’s and but’s.
If Barack Obama truly believed “in a country in which opportunity is available to all Americans, regardless of their race, gender or economic status”, he would unhesitatingly embrace Ward Connerly’s concept of race neutral practices in public employment, as embodied by the ballot initiatives to come before the voters of Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska. Imbuing these clearly- worded initiatives with “hidden agendas” is plain demagoguery and will fool fair minded Americans as little as identical measures did in California, Washington and Michigan where they passed overwhelmingly.
Finally, I fail to see how, according to Obama, these ballot initiatives would “roll back opportunity for millions of Americans.” I’d venture to say that they would “open up equal opportunity for millions of Americans. They would also erase divisiveness and anger fostered by decades of preferential practices in public employment and once again bring to the forefront the very values that undergird our nation’s Constitution and strengthen our shared American identity: meritocracy and the inalienable rights of the individual.
Besides, does anyone recall Martin Luther King saying: “I have a dream that someday my children will receive preferences based on the color of their skin?” I am afraid Dr. King has been turning in his grave for quite some time.
— Dr. Sylvia Wasson Jun 13, 03:40 PM #
We now have an affirmative action candidate for the Presidency. Once affirmative action REALLY starts benefitting women and minorities, and white males begin falling behind in test scores and in college enrollment, affirmative action is on the chopping block. Surprise surprise. An equal playing field is only equal if white males still hold the power. Once women and minorities gain access to education and some small amount of equitable treatment, the cry is that affirmative action is really racist and patronizing. Affirmative action should be combined with class to examine where the need exists. It is CLASS RACE AND GENDER that should be factors, not just GENDER and RACE.
— Mary Jun 15, 02:41 AM #
While Ward Connerly presents himself as if he is acting alone, he has some important help – all of it from rich, white, well-funded neo-conservative political activists, think tanks, and talk show hosts dedicated to turning back all the economic and social gains won through the labor struggles of the Thirties and the social movements of the Sixties and Seventies. They are the old-fashioned segrationists. Aligning themselves with these groups are nationally recognized hate groups, which Connerly is not hesitate to use.
In California, Proposition 209 has resulted in severe drops in black, Chicano, Latino, and Native American enrollment in the University of California’s top schools and graduate schools.
Connerly has been hired as their ultra-consertative mouth-piece and has become a multi-millionaire as a result.
It is hard to understand how eliminating programs that help people excel would improve the United States as a nation or help us excel in a world economy.
This is the history we must not repeat.
— Delores Grayam Jun 18, 09:03 AM #
No matter how one slices it: “qualified” equality is not equality. Giving preferences to some and not to all results in inequality — no matter WHAT justifications one presents for giving preferential treatment to some Americans and not to others. But I suppose only a post-constructionalist mind, which has disavowed logic and reason as its guiding principles, can wrap itself around the pseudo equation “preferences = equality.”
— Dr. Sylvia Wasson Jun 22, 04:22 PM #
The Supreme Ct of the USA determined the decedents of slaves had been harmed as a result of the Slave Industry. Imagine having workers you never have to pay to build the roads, plant and harvest the food for an entire nation and to do ALL the work required to build America!!The Court said each decendent was entitled to 40 acres of land and a mule. This never happened so this same court decided Affirmative Action was the remedy for this injustice. Folks are trying to say this is reverse discrimination…however to me, that’s a racist spin…as usual, by the powers that be.
— J.Adams Jun 23, 12:21 PM #