Victor Merina, a senior fellow at the USC Annenberg Institute for Justice and Journalism, has penned an article about the American Civil Rights Institute‘s Ward Connerly, “who can match his multiracial background with the biracial Obama.” (Source)
Merina, like so many others, uses the terms affirmative action and race preferences interchangeably, when they are not synonymous. Affirmative action is casting a “wider net” to include more qualified minorities into a hiring or admissions pool. Race preferences involve lowering standards for minorities in an effort to recruit more of them, inevitably discriminating against Asian and white applicants.
Nevertheless, Mesina correctly notes that to those of us who support Connerly, “he is the champion of equality.” Connerly and others will continue their crusade to dismantle race preferences and keep a close watch on President Barack Obama, whose view on race preferences is indeed “cloudy,” although he appears to support some form of socioeconomic preferences.
In 2010, voters in Missouri, Arizona, Colorado (and perhaps Oklahoma) may get to choose whether their state and local governments are allowed to consider factors like race when hiring, contracting, and admitting. Connerly and others are hopeful Obama chooses to push class-based preferences.
“He may not want to go there as fast as I do,” Connerly said, “but he’s given every indication that’s the direction he wants to go.”
{ 1 comment }
I have always believed that the passage of race-neutral ballot initiatives hinges to quite an extent on the American electorate’s clear understanding of the difference between “affirmative action” and “race preferences.”
The American people are a fair people. They overwhelmingly view race preferences as discriminatory and believe in merit-based competition among qualified individuals of all backgrounds. Thus they embrace the original meaning and intent of affirmative action.
Unfortunately, the now synonymous use of “affirmative action” and “race preferences” has clouded the public’s understanding of the issue. The pro-preference movement has used that lack of clarity to mislead the electorate, in that it has viciously portrayed Ward Connerly’s race-neutral referenda as a means to ending merit-based affirmative action.
I think it vital that the American Civil Rights Institute and its supporters embark on a media campaign (presentations, op-ed pieces, blogging, etc.)that highlights the antithetical nature of race preferences and affirmative action. Debunking the myth that the terms are one and the same should diminish the demagoguery of the pro-preference forces and ensure passage of future race-neutral referenda by a wider margin.
As regards President Obama, I believe he will support some form of socio-economic affirmative action, but I doubt that he will endorse an end to race preferences. This principled battle for genuine equality will be left to Mr. Connerly and to those who share his cause.
Comments on this entry are closed.