Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Five More States May Curtail Affirmative Action

Ballot measures pushed by Ward Connerly are likely to win passage

The prominent affirmative-action critic Ward Connerly appears well on his way to getting up to five states to vote in November 2008 on ballot measures banning the use of racial, ethnic, and gender preferences by public colleges and other state and local agencies.

And, according to political analysts who monitor the states that are the targets of Mr. Connerly's planned "Super Tuesday on affirmative action" — Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma — he stands a very good chance of getting measures passed in all of them.

All five states, which together account for 7.4 percent of the nation's population, have laws that make it fairly easy to place such referenda before their voters.

They also share several characteristics that suggest they will approve limits on affirmative action by solid to overwhelming margins. All have populations that are well over three-fourths white, and all lack the presence of minority advocacy groups strong enough to easily mount large-scale opposition campaigns. The only state among them that is not known for social conservatism is Colorado, where conservatives nonetheless account for a large enough share of the ideologically polarized electorate to have scored some key ballot victories in recent decades, passing term-limit and tax-limitation measures.

Full article here from the Chronicle of Higher Education (requires subscription)

The website of Ward Connerly's organization

11 comments:

redante said...

I favor measures to deal with inequality on an economic needs and class basis along the lines of this article .

That being said, Connerly's campaign against affirmative action has me feeling worried on several levels. First of all, I doubt if Connerly or those who support his campaigns are big supporters of egalitarianism. Sure -- we can remove affirmative action. But what happens afterwards? Will COnnerly and his supporters set their sights on some of the root, structural causes which perpetuate inequality -- dyfunctional inadequate, and crumbling public schools, college tuitions that are increasingly out of reach for the average person, etc?

Second, his strategy is to appeal to the prejudices and anti-minority sentiment in majority white states. Whatever you think about the issue of affirmative action, concentrating the efforts of your campaign to mobilize conservative, white populations against minorities only serve to fan the flames of polarization and ill will between whites and non-whites.

Brian said...

I agree Lib Arts Dude...

The motives of his supporters likely have nothing to do with a concern about misuse of affirmative action or wanting a level playing field. Often his supporters tend to be xenophobic white Conservatives, who are against the rise of any racial minority, especially in States where there is a perceived competition for jobs based on race.

Connerly plays on fears of the extremists.

He has even embraced the support of the KKK in one of his previous campaigns.

I personally would like to see reform of affirmative action. I would like to see something that would prevent quotas... but at the same time would force everyone to have to compete on a level playing field (or as much as possible). There has to be inclusion of Black candidates (and other minorities) in the application and interview process. Minorities should have the chance to get a foot in the door. There are all sorts of ways that this could be done without any kind of quota system.

Reform would in a sense take the wind out of the sails of people like Connerly. If there is no quota...then he has nothing to whine about.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]First of all, I doubt if Connerly or those who support his campaigns are big supporters of egalitarianism. Sure -- we can remove affirmative action. But what happens afterwards? Will COnnerly and his supporters set their sights on some of the root, structural causes which perpetuate inequality -- dyfunctional inadequate, and crumbling public schools, college tuitions that are increasingly out of reach for the average person, etc? [/quote]

Liberal Arts Dude:

Why do you ask Ward Connerly to focus on "Root Causes" when many in the Black community don't focus on ROOT CAUSES and or PERPETUATION of certain effects WITHIN the Black community?

Egalitarianism? Please define what this means to YOU.

[quote]dyfunctional inadequate (public schools)[/quote]

Is this from a source OUTSIDE of the school or from the people sitting in the class with you who DISRUPT the class' progress due to behavioural problems among other things?

[quote]
and crumbling public schools:
[/quote]
LAG:
Can you tell me that the AVERAGE Public School that has a minority population has the root of their lack of academic progress due to CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE?

[QUOTE]
college tuitions that are increasingly out of reach for the average person[/QUOTE]

Do you ever notice LAG that in Health Care the call is for PRICE CONTROLS so that the average citizen can afford these services. In education, however, the rise in tuitions receives the response for MORE GOVERNMENT MONEY thrown at the problem via GRANTS but never for PRICE CONTROLS placed upon the universities.

[quote]his strategy is to appeal to the prejudices and anti-minority sentiment in majority white states. [/quote]

So in no way does AFFIRMATIVE ACTION appeal to the White bigots who believe that Blacks ARE LESS THAN and need a government program for admissions?

[quote]to mobilize conservative, white populations against minorities only serve to fan the flames of polarization and ill will between whites and non-whites.
[/quote]

LAG - last November as the Democrats celebrated the take over of the Congress in the bluest of blue states called Michigan the WHITE LIBERALS once they were behind the cloak of privacy that the voting booth provided them REJECTED affirmative action within their LIBERAL bastion.

Why do you only selectively choose the CONSERVATIVE battlegrounds but fail to note that CA and MI have adopted limits on AA? Doesn't fit your narrative?

redante said...

Hello CF

I appreciate your efforts to question the established wisdom and conventional thinking regarding strategies to combat inequality but I think you sometimes go off the deep end in playing the role of critic.

First of all, I am not deliberately ignoring that Connerly passed referendums against Affirmative Action in MI and CA -- I placed the link to Connerly's web site right there and the Chronicle article itself talks about these events so I am not exactly sure where you got this idea I am trying to obscure inconvenient facts.

Second of all, if not affirmative action then what? How do we as a society supposedly built on the principles of egalitarianism, deal with the problem on inequality? I favor class-based and economic-based measures and would very much like Affirmative Action reformed along those lines.

CF, do you support egalitarianism? Or are you of the opinion that it should be every man (or group) for himself in a Darwinian struggle of whoever is the biggest and baddest wins out in the end? My idea of egalitarianism is that we as a society should aim for equality of opportunity and that every person should have an equal chance of success in life. How do we get there -- that is open to debate and I actually think debate on *how* to attain an egalitarian society is healthy. Whether it is through Affirmative Action or not -- I don't care.

Are you of the opinion that all this talk of egalitarianism is nonsense and inequality is something that people shouldn't be concerned about at all? I'm not accusing you of anything -- just getting the impression that you play the contrarian role so much that it sometimes obscures whether or not you are for anything at all.

Brian said...

but I think you sometimes go off the deep end in playing the role of critic.


Bwahhahahahahaa LOL

Ya think?

Sometimes????? lol

Nice response Lib.

rikyrah said...

Connerly is a sellout.
A Sambo.

Who made his fortune on Affirmative Action..by pimping either himself or his White wife for contracts.

And, then has the nerve to turn around and remove those opportunities for others. When confronted about what the educational opportunities that he has limited for others, he wants to dance around that.

Constructive Feedback said...

LAG:

I asked you to define EGALITARIANISM.

After the definition please tell me if you believe that a person's PROPERTY RIGHTS trumps any plan from the government to establish "egalitarinism"? It seems to me that the one thing that the tyranical governments around the world share in common is the disrespect for PROPERTY RIGHTS.

The question for me is NOT about the support of "Affirmative Action" as a litmus test. For me the bigger question that remains unanswered, particularly among African Americans is:

HAS OUR ENERGY BEEN PROPERLY FOCUSED ON ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM? AA is a METHODOLGY. One of many to acheive a certain end.

I am bothered that my people would protest to ensure that a few elite Black students get in the the University of Michigan or Berkeley for students who will get into SOME COLLEGE if not these elite schools. All the while LAG the "Wide Middle" of Black America is left relatively unattended to. Millions of Black young people face a career with only a high school diploma OR that of a college graduate IF the appropriate attention was placed on THEIR PLIGHT, attempting to strengthen THEIR public schools......rather than going after FISSURES WITH WHITE FOLKS so that a proportionally FEW Black kids can get into these elite schools.

Educational Based Affirmative Action is like TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH with respect to it MISSING the greater target.

You and others keep mentioning CRUMBLING school, underfunded public schools as THE problem. While I do believe that in certain areas funding is A problem. I fail to see this as THE problem that is standing in the way of quality education for minorities.

http://functionalculture.blogspot.com/2007/09/two-teachers-made-greatest-impact-upon.html


For me I refuse to follow POPULARITY unless there is strong EVIDENCE that what I am being asked to support is the most EFFECTIVE strategy forward. In my view the RACISM CHASE related to Affirmative Action IS NOT sir.

redante said...

This definition is from Wikipedia and I think it describes what I believe well enough:

Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals from birth. Generally it applies to being held equal under the law, the church, and society at large. The United States Declaration of Independence includes a kind of moral and legal egalitarianism. Because "all men are created equal," each person is to be treated equally under the law. However, not until much later did U.S. society extend these benefits to slaves, women and other groups. Over time, universal egalitarianism has won wide adherence and is a core component of modern civil rights policies.

I have no idea what you mean by "property rights" and what type of discussion you hope to achieve or what type of argument or statement I have made implies a violation of said "property rights."

You said:
I am bothered that my people would protest to ensure that a few elite Black students get in the University of Michigan or Berkeley for students who will get into SOME COLLEGE if not these elite schools. All the while LAG the "Wide Middle" of Black America is left relatively unattended to. Millions of Black young people face a career with only a high school diploma OR that of a college graduate IF the appropriate attention was placed on THEIR PLIGHT, attempting to strengthen THEIR public schools......rather than going after FISSURES WITH WHITE FOLKS so that a proportionally FEW Black kids can get into these elite schools.

CF: I totally agree with your statement above.I have always maintained that you can't talk about inequality in a capitalist society without taking into account social and economic class. And that if inequality is truly to be dealt with we have to catch where it begins -- early on in a child's life. You won't find much disagreement from me here.

You said:
Educational Based Affirmative Action is like TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH with respect to it MISSING the greater target. You and others keep mentioning CRUMBLING school, underfunded public schools as THE problem. While I do believe that in certain areas funding is A problem. I fail to see this as THE problem that is standing in the way of quality education for minorities.


CF: Again, you won't find much disagreement from me here. THere is a book out now that I plan on reading (here is a link to its blog and which I encourage you to read as well. It talks about how affirmative action as a policy has failed to advance the poor and working class. Its main point is that if we truly care about inequality, and if affirmative action is not working, then we have got to have a plan B.

Ward Connerly and those activists who want to get rid of affirmative action I do not see as motivated by a Plan B that involves enacting social justice and equality for the poor and working class. If they are and you know about it please let me know because it will be news to me and I always welcome the opportunity to learn something new.

Peter Schmidt said...

Just an FYI: People can find a link to the full text of my article at my Web site, colorandmoney.com.

--Peter Schmidt

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]
Ward Connerly and those activists who want to get rid of affirmative action I do not see as motivated by a Plan B that involves enacting social justice and equality for the poor and working class.[/quote]

LAD:

Ward Connerly is far from the first activist who set out to tear down one thing that he finds offensive while failing to promote a more savory alternative. Why start enforcing this with him?

It seems to me that Ward Connerly is but one man. I believe that it is incumbent upon the PRO-Affirmative Action forces to understand that all who oppose their policies are not fire-breathing RACISTS. Instead they choose to play the character assassination game and try to roll over their enemies rather than putting forth a policy that does indeed focus upon economic need rather than the assumption that all non-Whites are injury cases that needs help.

This comes back to FUNDAMENTALISM. They are more interested in hammering home their ideological conclusions without accepting the fact that their views must be fused into a world that has other views. As Fundamentalists they would rather remain PURE and true to their ideology as their framework is disassembled as time goes on. They have REMAINED TRUE to the cause and this matters more than the people who they have actually helped to get an education.

Constructive Feedback said...

Mr Schmidt:

One of my operative words for 2007 is 'PROPORTIONALITY'. In applying this filter to many of the issues that would otherwise have Black people operating in perpetual response mode I find that "proportionality" helps me to understand and prioritize important issues.

With this in mind I would like for you to tell me which of the two represents a greater OPPORTUNITY WINDOW for Black people to focus upon with the goal of MAXIMIZING the outcomes of our investment in time and energy?

1) A collective focus by Black activists in fighting how RICH WHITE KIDS exploit the system and get into elite, majority White institutions in lieu of the few Black students that COULD HAVE attended

2) The fact that the WIDE MIDDLE of Black America in 2007 often face the prospects of a lifetime of work with a high school diploma in hand (and increasingly with no diploma at all) OR a keen focus upon improving the public school experience where the vast majority of these students come from so that MORE those who are on track for "high school diploma" workers can be made into COLLEGE MATERIAL and many who are poised to drop out would at least get their diplomas?

Yous see Mr. Schmidt absent the PROPORTIONALITY filter the people who are often promoted to lead the Black masses will almost always choose the PROTEST against what the White man is doing over the INTERNAL MANAGEMENT that Black people SHOULD be doing. I have given up on the long heard claim that 'WE CAN DO BOTH'. The internal management does not have the UNIFYING appeal that a PROTEST has, regardless of it more potent results.

Mr. Schmidt - if we were to calculate the numbers behind both of these choices - it is clear that #2 would lap the population segment of #1 by several thousand times.

The elite Black students who are not getting into the elite school will get into other colleges none the less. The people in group #2 have far less options available to them.

The choice is clear.