blackprof.com: Selling Out in the Name of Love

About

If you have suggestions or questions about this blog, please contact or .

Regular Contributors

A picture of a man in a graduation cap The anti-affirmative action initiative passed easily in Michigan, just as similar ballot proposals prevailed in California in 1996 and the state of Washington in 1998. The dismantling of equal opportunity measures in California and Michigan was largley due to the kiss-me-while-you-screw-me determination of Ward Connerly, the African American former University of California Regent, defender of the KKK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhxis5k2Dmw and staunch opponent of racial and gender preferences in hiring and college admissions.

While we were distracted with media-driven drivel like Senator John Kerry’s foot-in -mouth exploits, Connerly was quietly piecing together a coalition of disaffected whites, frustrated students and opportunistic business people to handlily defeat the affirmative action ballot measure in Michagan, thus emboldening him to lead the charge against equal opportunities, in his words, "to a handful of other states" which would make the more daunting task of imposing a nationwide ban against affirmative action completely unnecessary. While there was hearty opposition to Connerly and his bunch in Michigan, the obliteration of affirmative action was an amazing feat for the son of single mother who was orphaned at the tender age of four and shuffled from pillar to post until finally taken in by his grandmother. Connerly, with grandfatherly eyes and a heart of stone has almost single-handedly rolled back twenty five years of progress for minorities and women with little of the fanfare reserved for the race baiting Bill O’Reillys and Russ Limbaughs of the world.

Yet, few in the recent istory of American public policy have worked so vehmently against the interests of black people in the name of helping us. Connerly's innocuous-sounding campaign of "educating the public about the need to move beyond race" resulted in the University of California at Los Angeles admitting the smallest number of African American freshmen in Fall 2006. Of the 249 African Americans accepted for admission, most likely anticipating a less than welcoming environment, only 99 of those accepted actually planned to attend UCLA. So embaressed was UCLA by its own admission policies failures, the intitution has promised a "holistic"approach in the future.

"Holistic review is another philosophical approach to implementing comprehensive review," said Jenny Sharpe, chair of the faculty Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools. "It will allow us the opportunity to have applications reviewed in their entirety so that all of a student's achievements from academic performance to leadership skills and can be looked at in the context of their life experiences."

Perhaps because he claims to be only "one fourth" Black, Connerly has no special allegiance to the life experiences of many African Americans. He would certainly not be the first black person to adopt that position.

A picture of Secretary Rice

Condolessa Rice is another high profile African American who easily distances herself from African American concerns, claiming that little in her life “has to do with race.” However one might feel about Condi's politics, her racial disconnect- evidenced by callously shoe shopping while Katrina ravaged- is more passive and reactive than active and promotional. Ward Connerly on the other hand is a strategic ideologue who operates quietly, and dangerously behind the scenes, selling us out in the name of love.

Comments

I grasp Connorly’s libertarianesque arguments against affirmative action policies. I believe his position suffers from several fallacies of reasoning in induction: faulty generalizations, faulty causal generalizations, and faulty analogies. I suppose that since his opponents have been unable to convince enough voters that his arguments contain fallacies of matter, many good people probably scrutinized his emotional and ethical appeals less rigorously than they should have. Moreover, his ethnic background and life story strengthen his credibility and reputation among many. He is a formidable rhetorical opponent.

Supporters of affirmative action policies do themselves few favors when they respond to him with ad populum and ad hominem arguments. While these argumentative devices would probably stir those who already disagree with Connorly, I doubt they would persuade the undecided. Supporters of affirmative action policies should seek to convince Connorly’s followers and would-be followers that his arguments are fallacious using better argumentative techniques. This is, after all, a rhetorical battle.

His opponents should continue to invest in developing superior social science inductions that would counter his. These superior inductions could be used to compete for the support of the undecided. And, those who recently decided to follow Connorly because they had been persuaded by the force of his social science inductions might be persuaded to rejoin the undecided or become supporters of affirmative action policies.

Posted by: E.C. Hopkins | December 10, 2006 03:37 PM

Of the 249 African Americans accepted for admission, most likely anticipating a less than welcoming environment, only 99 of those accepted actually planned to attend UCLA.

According to an article in the L.A. Times, "schools such as UC Berkeley and UCLA have seen their yield rates hover at about 40% in recent years."

249 x 40% = 99.6

Was it that statistical six-tenths of a person who was dissuaded from accepting at UCLA because of the hostile environment?

More seriously, that African Americans admitted to UCLA would not be dissuaded from attending by its lack of affirmative action is not surprising. UCLA did not voluntarily abandon AA--it was forced to by statewide referendum. UCLA, then, would be no more unwelcoming than any other place in California, which is where the vast majority of UCLA students of all races come from.

This is neither here nor there in the real affirmative action debate. That same article points out that UCLA accepted 12,094 students--of which your post indicates only 249 were African American.

Posted by: Andrew | December 10, 2006 08:05 PM

I think I agree with E.C Hopkins. I think I woud be someone on the fence. But I would have trouble agreeing with someone just because the names Rush Limbeau, Bill O Reilly, and Condolessa Rice are used in the same editorial and hope because I see those names I side with them. A majority of the population is going to read the law they are about to vote on, here it is: “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.” And they will ask themselves: What's wrong with that? I think this is where the argument needs to be fought.

Posted by: ken | December 10, 2006 10:20 PM

E.C. Hopkins,

There is already research out there disproving Connerly. The problem is that his message is so simple, and his detractors message requires too much analysis. What is need now is a Malcolm or Martin type of person who can "make it plain"!

Posted by: adam | December 11, 2006 08:52 AM

adam:

I would agree that there are great research that could be used to support those who would oppose Connorly in this important rhetorical battle. However, because this battle will be decided by a complex of attendant considerations, the opposing side’s social science inductions might need to be even stronger than they are, or, as you suggest, the rhetorical strategies and/or orators who would oppose Connorly would need to be superior. How superior would the social science and/or the rhetoric need to be in order for the supporters of affirmative action policies to win this rhetorical battle?

Some of the considerations:

1) the voting audiences economic interests, political ideologies, and educations;

2) the persuasive force of the rhetoricians and their arguments (more orators with talents, eruditions, reputations, characters, life stories, and personas similar to King's or Obama's would come in very handy here);

3) the force of the ethical and emotional appeals (Connorly will probably target states in which the chances that he would be successful were relatively high. If he succeeds in these states, then his chances of succeeding in others might increase; as success in some states might influence public opinions in others. He would appear to be gaining momentum and to be in tune with the sentiments of more American citizens and many might feel more comfortable backing his position);

4) the other stuff that is stealing citizens' attentions from this important issue, and the ideological and philosophical contexts of issues discussed in popular media outlets, which serve as the backdrop in which this rhetorical battle would occur (I think Connorly’s advantages here may be significant).

Posted by: E.C. Hopkins | December 11, 2006 10:26 AM

Adam has it exactly right. The failure of Affirmative Action should be laid at the feet of black political disintegration. The political unity proposed throughout history by nationalists like Garvey and more recently during the Black Nationalist movements of the 60s comes and goes. I think that at this point in American history it has gone and will not return.

The politics of civil rights is done. Now we are in an era of social power but African American perceptions of their political self-interests have not fundamentally changed in any coherent fashion. Instead of knowing what a black agenda is and who are the leaders of that , we only know which 'black leaders' we don't respect.

For all the relatively meager benefits of Affirmative Action, black America has not rallied. That is because like Malcolm X, many of us have realized the limits of putting our fates in the charitable hands of others. Because of this there hasn't been an overpowering base of support for such matters. But even if Affirmative Action were Reparations cash, there would be no significant African American coalition that could be assembled and maintained.

The black monolith has been crumbled. Around us lie the ruins. Pick up your fragment and head to the horizon.

Posted by: Cobb | December 11, 2006 01:20 PM

I think probably the best way to combat this, if you believe its worth while, is to sell the law as redundant. We already have equal rights for everybody. Also make sure to note this does not end Afirmative action. Employers still need plans on recruitment of employees from minorities. After the law is considered pratically meaningless, then you can begin to question the motives of those who are promoting the law, and why they feel it is so crucial. Then maybe people will evaluate the issue more in detail.

Posted by: ken | December 11, 2006 02:06 PM

Affirmative Action in the realm of public institutions is dead. Time to bury the horse and move on.

Posted by: elb1999 | December 11, 2006 03:18 PM

I think you are right Elb, I was just giving an idea if somebody wanted to fight for it.

Posted by: ken | December 11, 2006 04:08 PM

On Affirmation Action in the 21st Century

I do not believe most of Black America’s gravest modern problems result from flagrant racism. However, I would not agree that she does not suffer unjustly from structural racism and aversive racism. Yet, I am convinced few, perhaps none, could accurately measure and tersely convey the magnitude of the harms caused by structural racism and aversive racism. I am also convinced that American citizens, who believe fair contests are the better than rigged contests, who could be persuaded that structural racism and aversive racism continue to harm minority groups, and who could be convinced that these forms of racism are made unjustly potent via Whites’ power privileges that resulted from past disadvantaging and unjust harms against Blacks (and other minority groups), could be persuaded to support Affirmative Action.

Structural racism and aversive racism, unlike the more recognizable and more sickening forms of racism Black America endured only a few decades ago, are subtler and often accomplished more furtively. Accordingly, it is more difficult to persuade non-Blacks, indeed it is becoming increasingly difficult to persuade Blacks who aren’t among Black America’s working poor and underclass, that these subtler and more furtive forms of racism are significantly harmful, are unjustly limiting Black Americans, or result, at least in part, from the unmeritocratic distribution of unearned privileges to Whites—unearned privileges that are also difficult to measure scientifically or convey tersely. Many of the undecided, who could be persuaded these subtler and more furtive forms of racism continue to unjustly limit Blacks, often want scientifically based proof of the magnitude of the damage of structural racism and aversive racism. And, this proof is not easy to provide to the average American voter. The most potent evidence is often embedded in difficult-to-grasp sociological and psychological theories and research.

The uncertainty concerning the reasons why Blacks continue to trail Whites, often markedly, in just about every quality of life statistic; the diverse opinions about Affirmative Action that have resulted from this uncertainty; and the formidable rhetoric and simpler—perhaps too simple—evidence offered by those who would oppose affirmative action, all combine to threaten the Affirmative Action mechanisms that have helped Black America a great deal (the degree to which Affirmative Action has helped is controversial, but I’d not debate this complex issues with others over a blog).

We needn’t, however, give up on either the mechanisms in place or the ideologies that underlie the mechanisms just yet. Instead, we should respect the challenge before us and discover new ways to prepare our minds, our leaders, and our organizations even more effectively in order to take on Black America’s more challenging modern riddles. How do we preserve the still needed Affirmative Action mechanisms, in their old forms or in new forms? This is one of Black America’s many important riddles.

If she fails, if we fail, to solve this riddle, then she might lose this important battle in which she fights to preserve the playing-field-leveling, structural racism-counteracting, aversive racism-counteracting, and unmeritocratic-White-privilege-eschewing mechanisms otherwise known as Affirmative Action.

Posted by: E.C. Hopkins | December 11, 2006 11:17 PM

Simply put this man is lethal to not just African-Americans, but all ethnic minorites and women. The truly sad thing is he detests the skin he walks in and has spent his life trying to prove that he is NOT what he appears to be.

I'm going to lump him with Janice Rogers Brown and Clarence Thomas. Something became unscrewed in their early formative years when they endured much struggle. Connerly went from foster to foster home until his grandparents took him in. How they raised him and what he suffered before he got to them might explain his behavior over the past 25 years. Brown had a difficult young life in segregated Alabama and it appears that at this time things changed with her pattern of thinking. She decided to go into law not for a love or appreciation of it, but rather to use it as a tool to set her idealogue into motion. Thomas was raised by a strict grandfather that never let him forget that he took he and his brother in because their mother couldn't provide for them. He is a mediocre lawyer at best and used chance opportunities (and of course affirmative action) to place himself in the position to be selected for the Supreme Court.

Many of us lived and grew up in the same time frame as these folks and grew to take the indignites and putdowns to make us stronger and of finer character. It seems with this set of people, it made them desire to be a color that they are not - white.

Posted by: J | December 12, 2006 08:22 PM

"... The truly sad thing is he detests the skin he walks in and has spent his life trying to prove that he is NOT what he appears to be...

...Something became unscrewed in their early formative years when they endured much struggle."

The troubling reality is that there's no shortage of "liberal soliders" saddled with the same internal wounds and self-loathing.

Sure, the packaging and approach is different, but at the end of the day, the sole objective is the same: to be the center of white folk's attention and acceptance.

You really have to pity those who operate like this.

Posted by: casual observer | December 13, 2006 12:16 PM

Today, The Chronicle of Higher Education published, “Ward Connerly Names States That May Be His Next Targets for Bans on Affirmative-Action Preferences” by Peter Schmidt.

Connorly is looking to reproduce his persuasive and successful efforts in nine states during fall of 2008 in what would be a “Super Tuesday.” The article quotes Connorly, who said of race-based preferences: "I think that we are witnessing the end of an era." Connorly is also quoted as having said the educational challenges of many Blacks are: "self-inflicted…stemming from a culture that does not value academic achievement as strongly as it should." One of his premises is that, “All the years of racial preferences have not solved the gap.” And, Connorly is confident, as he is quoted: "I don't think there will ever be a state that is as difficult as Michigan."

The nine states are Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Posted by: E.C. Hopkins | December 14, 2006 09:33 AM

The Ghosts of Reversity – the challenge to Inclusion

Who are these spirits that have conquered your soul? How did they entrap you? What were you told?

Deep inside my heart, a slave and freedman reside, their struggle still as vivid as the blood dripping down Jesus’ side.

I’ve tried to understand the walk you are on, but my heart has stayed troubled and I feel the hurt of ancestors forgone.

Around the nation many of my people are still in misery and pain. Still seeking opportunity as your camp builds walls against affirmative action with distain.

I see hurt in their eyes as through the prismed windows they stare. You’d rather see them stay locked up. You have lost the will to care.

You are working hard to quiet the birds that sing. You’re dampening their motivation – get rid of the affirmative action thing.

Confidently you stride through states, hamlets, and a new town – laughing at the shackles still holding our people down.

Who are they -- These spirits that have taken control? Help me understand their power – Is it notoriety or do you seek a personal bounty for selling a people’s soul?

In California where you started your ride, you’ve helped lock up opportunity and the aspiration and hope of many has strategically died.

The medicine you prescribe is like a cancer misdiagnosed. Treating your actions like fodder as you continue to brag and boast.

Years ago while day dreaming back on a southern farm, I thought of the future and how my proud ancestors protected us from hurt and harm.

They instilled common decency, love and respect. They worked hard to break down walls of segregation and systemic neglect.

The vestiges still linger yet these spirits have blocked your view. They have hoodwinked a community and built a wall between me and you.

What’s really sad about the conviction you possess, is that you don’t see the lost hope in that minority child’s eye. You are too busy constructing a new Jim Crow test.

My fellow Americans, and yes, my friends in Michigan too, don’t be fooled into thinking that his strategy is helping you too.

At night I dream of the courageous ones before. I see tears streaming from their eyes as they re-assert the question – will you close opportunity’s door?

Yes my friends, domestic tranquility may well be as stake, as economic inequality widens, pushing opportunity below the surface of a pristine Michigan lake.

Who are these spirits and what do they want? They are Reversity’s ghosts looking for a new house to haunt.

Effenus Henderson
www.henderworks.com
December 14, 2006

Posted by: E. Henderson | December 14, 2006 03:08 PM

Ward Connerly and his supporters never speak of the fact why we have Affirmative Action in the first place---the known legacy of slavery and discrimination in the U.S. They don't mention that schools for minorities were inferior and that minorities were denied the basics for education, housing, health, and the right to vote for their representatives. The list goes on and on. Mr. Connerly forgets that we had to desegregate our universities in the South with the national guard just so one black man (James Meredith) attend the University of Mississippi. To those who say discrimination is no longer an issue or not that bad,look at the statistics for the EEOC, look at the court judgements for sexual harassment--they show very clearly that discrimination against women and minorities is an ongoing problem. Mr. Connerly and his supporters lack of acknowledgement of the facts and our history is appalling as it is unethical. He (Connerly) states he would favor an economic based system--at the same time dismanteling the safeguards that make for the level playing field for millions of minorities and women. His so-called idea of an economic based system is not even in placed or thought of, especially since governments both state and local are telling folks in higher ed that the money is going to be less in the future. We cannot afford as a nation for Affirmative Action to be destroyed and with it the progess this country has made.

Posted by: Dr. John Burnett | December 14, 2006 05:38 PM

ovarian society cancer

Posted by: minnesota cancer ovarian | April 10, 2007 06:06 AM

familial cancer pancreatic

Posted by: discussion cancer pancreatic | April 14, 2007 06:59 AM