I used to blog for Ward Connerly’s American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), an organization created to eradicate racial preferences and discrimination in government. On a Friday evening earlier this month, I was told via e-mail that my services no longer were required, effective immediately — a disappointing way to end a three-year professional relationship.
A couple of weeks before I received the pink slip, I learned from the New York Times, along with everyone else, that the IRS and California’s attorney general are investigating Connerly, and former employee Jennifer Gratz alleges that he mismanaged donations for personal gain. Lead plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), Gratz resigned last September, a fact I didn’t know until early January 2012.
In a five-page letter (PDF) through her lawyer, Gratz said Connerly’s organizations — ACRI, the American Civil Rights Coalition, and the American Civil Rights Foundation — have been in financial crisis since March 2010. Recent tax documents show Connerly’s annual salary (over $1 million) totaled more than half ACRI’s revenue. His handling of donor funds “raised questions about whether the organization’s mission has been subordinated to Mr. Connerly’s personal interests.”
Read the rest.
Anybody who knows me knows how I feel about racial preferences. I used to blog for the American Civil Rights Institute, an organization created to eradicate the practice in government, and I’ve written about preferences a few times at Pajamas Media.
“Affirmative action” opponents have been waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether to hear arguments in Fisher v. Texas, a case in which the plaintiffs allege the University of Texas rejected their applications because they’re white.
Today the court announced it will take up the case.
In 2003, the court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that schools may use race as a “plus” factor in admissions, while the same court ruled in companion case Gratz v. Bollinger that schools can’t use a points-for-race system. It is my fervent hope that the court strikes down all policies that factor race into admissions decisions at taxpayer-supported institutions. The practice is unfair, demeaning, and a double-edged sword.
As I work on a proposal for a book about “affirmative action” (and yes, I’m still working on that novel), I’m going through the archives to remember what I’ve written on the topic. Here’s an excerpt of the first racial preferences post, originally published on December 9, 2003:
***
A bunch of black “legislators” are demanding that Texas A&M University lower their standards to increase minority (read: black) enrollment after the school removed race as an admissions factor. The only way black students can measure up is to measure down. Am I the only black person on the planet offended by this? With this “demand,” black liberals have lost all pretense of furthering educational standards (and dignity).
Do you know how to increase minority enrollment in colleges? Try these on for size:
1. Get rid of black “leaders” like Kweisi Mfume ranting about too few black images on TV and throw the idiot boxes out the window!
2. Demand school choice for kids in failing schools. Rescue these kids from rotten teachers who can’t even pass high school-level tests and rotting classrooms and give them with the rigorous education they need to make it in college.
3. Raise the expectations of black students by encouraging them to work hard in school. Provide a non-PC, academic environment where every child is expected to compete. Accept nothing less.
4. After you demand and get school choice nationwide, close down the teachers unions. Liberals may act like socialists, but when it comes to the cash, they’re pure capitalists. What would happen if parents had choices in education? They would flee like they’re making a jail break, which would mean less money for schools, fewer teachers and fewer excuses to whine about the “lack of funds” for education.
The unions would be highly upset and their contributions to Democrats would dwindle. If Democrats were no longer beholden to this particular special interest group, perhaps the blinders would come off and they’d actually see the plight of low-income kids.
Earlier this year I told you about a case called Ricci v. DeStefano. The fire department in New Haven, Connecticut, threw out the results of a promotions test because no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotions. In other words, white firefighters (over a dozen) and two hispanics who qualified were denied promotions because of their race.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the firefighters and against New Haven. (Also see video)
Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, was one of the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit who sided with New Haven. In other words, she ruled against the firefighters denied promotions because of skin color.
A developing meme is that the Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor. Will it make a difference during confirmation hearings? I’m not hopeful Sotomayor-reversed will generate much steam. I doubt Republicans have the heart to grill Sotomayor the way they should. They’re not of stout heart.
For a little light reading, download the 93-page opinion. (PDF)
