If Ward Connerly has his way, on Election Day 2008 no fewer than five states will host referenda to bar racial preferences in public college admissions, employment, and contracting. If the measures succeed, Connerly explains in an interview, "we will be witnessing the end of an era" in which racial, ethnic, and gender preferences have been used to promote "diversity" and the social advancement of women and minorities.
Envisioning a repudiation of the "diversity rationale," Connerly says that "we're going to abbreviate the 'twenty-five years.'" He's referring to the following statement from Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote in Grutter v. Bollinger, the 2003 Supreme Court decision permitting race to be used as one of many factors in university admissions, "Twenty-five years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary."
"Ward has played a crucial role in providing a face with which to identify the campaign against preferences," says Michigan State University professor William B. Allen. As a member of the University of California Board of Regents, Connerly championed the 1995 referendum ending the state's racial admissions preferences. In 1996, Connerly guided passage of Proposition 209, repealing California's racial preferences in public school admissions, employment, and contracting. He led a similar measure in Washington state.
Most recently, in Michigan in 2006, Connerly set out to prove the Supreme Court "got it wrong" in 2003 when it upheld the constitutionality of the University of Michigan Law School's use of race "as one of many factors" to achieve student diversity. Even longtime colleagues
doubted Connerly could succeed in a Democratic state with a high minority population where politicians of both parties joined academics, clergy, business, union, and civil rights leaders to oppose the measure. A poll before Election Day 2006 showed Connerly's measure--dubbed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative--losing by 10 points. Yet days later voters overwhelmingly approved the measure, 58 percent to 42 percent. The result was even more remarkable given the wide margin of victory for two Democrats, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who won reelection 56 percent to 42 percent, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who won reelection 57 percent to 41 percent. Both politicians received fewer votes than Connerly's initiative.
According to Connerly, Michigan "radically altered the playing field" in the debate over preferences. The stark gap between elite and popular opinion and the margin of victory of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative encouraged Connerly to seek a knock-out blow against preferences. Todd Gaziano, director for legal and judicial studies at the Heritage Foundation, says Connerly is "savvy to seize the moment" and press his agenda for a race-neutral society.
Connerly systematically surveyed states before determining the best locations for his 2008 referenda. His prime considerations were whether he would have local support (and thereby combat what he calls the "carpetbagger" label) and whether he would have a "good shot of winning." Beginning on April 23, Connerly traveled to Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Dakota announcing that they were the selected states.
Connerly says two things are responsible for the gulf between elite and popular opinion on racial preferences. First, racial preference proponents believe that they have the "moral high ground" in defending racial preferences designed to aid the "disadvantaged." Second, Connerly believes that many are simply cowed by civil rights activists and academics who label preference opponents "racists." "There are a lot of people who feel very, very strongly that if you don't support ethnic and racial preferences you are evil," says Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity.
|
