Ending Racial Preferences This November

Ballot Initiative Alert from AZ, CO, and NE:

Three states have certified inititiaves for the November 4th ballot that would ban racial preferences and ethnic discrimination. Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska have "Civil Rights Initiatives" on the ballot that would end preferential treatment based on race for public employment, public education, and public contracting. Predictably, lawsuits have been filed by affirmative action proponents to keep these measures off the ballot.

The American Civil Rights Institute, founded by Ward Connerly and Dusty Rhodes, have sponsored and helped set up these statewide campaigns in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska. They have been similarly successful in California, where it passed with 54% of the vote in 1996, and Michigan, where it passed with 58% of the vote in 2006.

Visit this blog which promotes Super Tuesday for Civil Rights.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed from late April by Harry Stein makes an interesting point:

"Though the racial-preference ballot measures are officially nonpartisan, they stand to make a dramatic impact on the fall campaign. With the question of racial preferences effectively nationalized by its presence on multiple state ballots, neither party's presidential candidate will be able to evade the issue. While this might pose a dilemma for Mr. McCain -- who, like most Republicans, has long shied away from the topic and might worry about jeopardizing Hispanic support -- it could be catastrophic for Mr. Obama. As Mr. Connerly says, 'This is a guy who's tried awfully hard for a long time not to appear what he is -- just another left-winger who supports preferences.'"

I'm not sure that Stein's electoral analysis works. Did the marriage amendments and ballot initiatives create increased social-conservative turnout in certain states in the past to help presidential and statewide congressional candidates? Sure. I'm not so sure that the civil rights initiatives will do the same, because it will probably galvanize both sides of the affirmative action crowd equally. But if Stein's analysis is correct, helping to compete in a swing state like Colorado and securing a traditionally red state like Nebraska where Obama is playing small-ball for it's divided electoral votes.

In response to the multiple posts on racism and Jesse Helms: ending racial preferences is something that could be a galavinizing issue for right the next generation of both "Spring-Aheads" and "Fall-Backers", as described by John Zogby. I believe that the next generation of "super-voters" of all ethnicities, both over- and under-represented, will want to move beyond affirmative action.

Public institutions of higher education have been the focus, but the initiatives go in the right direction by targeting public employment and contracting. When it comes to education, socioeconomically-based preference programs might be the answer. Even some African-Americans are starting to support the end of racial preference programs, like Professor Stephen Carter of Yale, who said the following in a NTY op-ed on Sunday:

"University affirmative action programs, whatever their benefits, are no remedy for the problems of the black poor. Perhaps this is why Barack Obama has questioned publicly whether his children should benefit from them and also why leading voices on the black left — Cornel West comes to mind — have proposed that college admissions programs give preferential consideration based on economic class."

BOTTOM LINE: Support the Civil Rights Initiatives in AZ, CO, and NE. And start thinking about how the next conservative movement can create a broad coalition that moves beyond race.

- MM

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Make Obama Take A Position On These Initiatives

If McCain had a killer instinct, he'd make Obama take a stand on these upcoming initiatives.  This is one of the few issues the public overwhelmingly agrees with conservatives on, across all 50 states.

It would also make Obama look bad because there's convincing evidence that he, and especially his wife Michelle, have benefited (unfairly in my view) from racial preferences.  For example, Michelle Obama has stated that she had really low SAT scores, which begs the question, "How did she get into Princeton with low SAT scores?"  Answer: Because she's black, and Universities lower their standards for certain races, especially African-Americans.  Those sort of policies enrage most Americans, and justifiably so.
 

I think you could make a very convincing case that where they are today has more to do with government mandated hand outs then through their own hard work. 

Obama?

It would be nice if we could get McCain to take a position on them.

This is one of the few issues the public overwhelmingly agrees with conservatives on

Yeah, but it's an issue that McCain and the GOP won't touch.

Are SAT scores the only determining factor ..

for getting into Princeton?

No.

Skin color is also a factor. There are a certain number of slots reserved for blacks and Hispanics.

 

Compelling State Interest

The legal jargon that the Supreme Court (i.e. Sandra Day O'Connor) used was that diversity in institutions of higher education was a legitimate "compelling state interest" in order to increase the quality of a student's educational experience. Here are a few questions that supporters of affirmative action still have to answer:

1. Is an ethinic minority student less likely to learn from "increased diversity" than a white student because he or she is already an ethnic minority?

2. Since Michelle Obama is 100% African-American, and her husand Barack is 50% African-American, would students be half as likely to have an increased education experience from Barack than they would with Michelle? Does Barack only fulfill half as much of the compelling state interest as Michelle does?

3. Most importantly, why are SPECIFIC minority given an edge over other minority groups? No extra points or extra consideration is given to Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans, Russian-Americans, Italian-Ameicans or Arab-Americans? Why is it geared only towards "under-represented" minorities, which are defined as Hispanic-, African-, and Native-American?

White guilt over slavery?

That's the only compelling reason I can think of.  I blame the Founding Fathers for this screw-up.  If all men are created equal and we hold these truths to be self-evident, then why in Heaven's name did they continue practicing slavery after accepting the Declaration of Independence (particularly in Jefferson's case)?  In the modern world, it makes no sense - although much like illegal immigration, I'm sure that the Southern capitalists had great economic reasons for this dumb-ass, immoral strategy that we're all still paying for, centuries after the fact. 

As wrong as I know that slavery was (and still is today), the  thing that's always pissed me off about it is that my ancestors are Irish, Scot, French and Norwegian immigrants who came to America in the late 1800's years after slavery had been abolished.  But that makes no difference because I'm judged visually by my skin color, not by my invisible pedigree. 

I grew up in "multicultural" Hawaii where white kids were routinely beaten up in public schools for being whites, or haoles, by our diverse brethren and sistern, and it's interesting to see trends toward that same mind-set here in the mainland.  In the Hawaiian language, haole doesn't translate as Caucasian, it translates as pig.  We've come a long way, but we seem to have a long, long way yet to go in the area of racial tolerance - involving all races.