Since
the Michigan media can’t be relied on to report Ward Connerly’s
response to the Governor’s misleading statements regarding MCRI,
bloggers will have to present the facts for voters to decide for
themselves:
–
March 17, 2006
The Honorable Jennifer M. Granholm
Office of Governor
State of Michigan
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, MI 48909
Dear Governor Granholm:
In your March 9, 2005 Guest Column, “Affirmative action ban would
hurt state’s future,” you took great liberties in making reference to
me and my motives for supporting and promoting the Michigan Civil
Rights Initiative (MCRI). At the end of your piece, you extended an
open invitation for readers to write to you. Because I saw no exception
that would prohibit me from accepting that invitation, I am doing so
accordingly.
At the outset, let me address my status as an “outsider.” Governor,
I was born in Leesville, Louisiana, a fact which makes me an American
citizen by birth. How is it that you, being Canadian by birth, have a
greater entitlement to the privileges and benefits of American
citizenship than I? Among those benefits and privileges is the right to
have opinions and the right to express those opinions about matters –
big and small – that affect all Americans. Michigan is not an island in
some foreign country. It is one of the American states to which my tax
dollars flow and where my passport of “civil rights” is presumed to be
valid. If your defense of racial and gender preferences is on such
solid ground, why is it necessary to hearken back to the days of Jim
Crow segregationists who complained about those “outsiders” who
asserted their right to urge our nation to fulfill the promise of equal
treatment to all Americans, regardless of race, color, or national
ancestry?
What is it about individuals such as you and Congressman John
Dingell, who has also taken me to task for exercising my right as an
American to express opposition to race preferences in Michigan, that
causes you to be so intolerant and insecure about your convictions that
you resort to such intellectual isolationism when it comes to an issue
such as race? On the one hand, you talk boldly about the “global
economy,” but then you retreat into your state’s rights cocoon when it
comes to matters such as civil rights.
You assert that had I been from Michigan, I would know that
“diversity is part and parcel in our economic strength.” Are you
kidding? Or, are you simply attempting to distract the people of your
state, for political reasons, by making me a bogey man? California is
one of the most “diverse” places on the planet. The California economy
is vibrant and booming. And, I hasten to add, California is a state
that has outlawed preferential treatment on the basis of race, gender
and ethnicity. Michigan, on the other hand, is regarded by many as one
of the preference capitals of the nation. How is your economy? How many
jobs are you losing day-by-day? To what “economic strength” are you
making reference? Are you really expecting your residents to believe
that by ending preferential treatment on the basis of race, gender and
ethnicity, your state’s economy will worsen even more? If so, such an
assertion defies logic.
It is amusing that you call the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative
“deceptively named.” Have you ever read the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Do
you consider the principle of equal treatment “without regard to race,
color or ethnicity,” contained in that Act, to be such a deception that
the Congress erred in naming it the “Civil Rights Act?” Has it escaped
your attention that the principle contained in MCRI is identical to
that contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Your column, which seems to attempt to summon the better nature of
your electorate by appealing to the importance of “diversity,” is
inconsistent in one major respect. You say that if I knew your people
better I would understand that you appreciate the value of “teamwork
and unity.” You point to the great pride that the people of Michigan
can take in their “steady advance of freedom and equality.” All of this
is true. Why, then, do you presume that these same good people are
closet bigots who are just waiting for the opportunity to discriminate
against women and “minorities?” Why do you lack confidence in their
capacity to treat others the way they wish to be treated – with
fairness and dignity?
If you oppose “quotas,” as you say you do, how can you support their
functional equivalent and the method by which quotas are obtained –
“preferential treatment?” Like so many others who express their
opposition to “quotas,” your opposition rings hollow when you seek to
have it both ways: oppose quotas but support preferential treatment of
women and others based on skin color and ethnic background.
I was born in the Deep South, at a time when racial discrimination
was rampant. I know first-hand the meaning of the term “racial
discrimination.” I doubt that you can say the same. Your knowledge
about discrimination was probably gleaned from history books. In days
of my youth, as a brown-skinned man, I rarely heard the term,
“diversity.” But, I sure as hell heard and experienced
“discrimination.” And, I can tell you that the pursuit of diversity
should never be an excuse for our government to sanction or practice
discrimination based on an individual’s race, color, gender, ethnicity
or national ancestry. That principle should be guaranteed to Jennifer
Gratz, a white woman, equally as it is guaranteed to me, a black man.
One should not have to be an “outsider from California” to convince you
of the importance of the fundamental principle of equal treatment
before the law without regard to the color of a person’s skin. This
principle is deeply etched in the character of most Americans. Had you
been born in America, perhaps you would have a better appreciation of
this fact.
Finally, let me address two astounding claims that you make about
the effects of MCRI. First, you claim that MCRI would “eliminate
programs that are encouraging female and minority students to pursue
“these (scientists and engineers) critical careers.” MCRI would do no
such thing. It would prohibit you from giving them “preferential
treatment.” It certainly would not prohibit you from “encouraging” them
to pursue careers in these fields. Also, let me state the obvious:
since you are currently able to grant preferential treatment based on
gender, why aren’t there more women in these fields now? Could there be
other factors that have nothing to do with the issue of “affirmative
action?”
Have you noticed that at elite institutions of higher education,
such as Harvard, UC Berkeley, the University of Michigan and others,
where race and gender preferences are taken most seriously, the number
of “affirmative action” beneficiaries who graduate with degrees in
science and engineering is no greater than at other institutions? It is
not rocket science to realize that this phenomenon has nothing to do
with the ability to promote “diversity.” This argument is a fig leaf
for other objectives. If women can be governors and among the highest
paid university presidents in the land, without any “preferential
treatment,” why should we believe they need “affirmative action” to
become scientists or engineers?
Second, you acknowledge the need to “eliminate the achievement gap
in education in Michigan,” but you claim that MCRI “would end programs
that help minority students achieve the high standards we are setting
in our schools.”
Governor, this would be laughable were it not so tragic. It is clear
that you have little knowledge about what accounts for this achievement
gap. Moreover, if this gap exists in a paradigm that promotes
preferential treatment, but is widening instead of closing, pray tell
how the elimination of preferences will worsen the situation. Frankly,
as a “minority,” I consider it demeaning and insulting that you believe
“minority” students can only meet high standards by the benefice of
preferential treatment. Had you lived through the period of my youth
and been subjected to the conditions of racial oppression, as I was,
you would know about the strength of spirit of black people and their
ability to achieve without preferences, as long as they were not held
back by discrimination based on the color of their skin.
If you seriously want to help “minority students” – and I certainly
believe you do – then you will lead the way in giving them greater
freedom to attend a school of their choice. You will lead the effort to
eliminate “legacy” admissions so that all students will have an equal
chance, regardless of whether their ancestors attended the university
or not. You will make it possible for the daughter of a union worker,
whose parents did not attend UM, to have the same chance as the son of
a big automaker executive, whose dad had the privilege of graduating
from UM and who donates large sums to preserve a preference for his
children and grandchildren. You would lend your support to the growing
national movement in favor of socioeconomic “affirmative action”
instead of race-based “affirmative action.” Help those who need it, not
those who happened to be born with the right color of the day.
Should you care to further this discussion and to become enlightened
about the facts of this controversy instead of relying on the
sound-bites of those aligned with you, I am at your service. Certainly,
even an “outside activist from California,” whose tax dollars end up in
the coffers of Michigan, might have something to offer on a subject
that seems to be of such interest to you.
Sincerely,
Ward Connerly
Ward Connerly. Basic Cultural Change. MCRI
White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. Shelby Steele. HarperCollins, 2006.