Posted on 07/28/2002 5:10:09 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Ward Connerly again.
As if a year that has given us corporate criminality, pedophile priests and a new Adam Sandler movie were not already odious enough, now the notorious University of California regent is back in the headlines. For those who don't know, Connerly is the black — and he would probably disavow that characterization — activist who spearheaded the successful 1996 drive to end affirmative action in Golden State government and universities.
Connerly's latest crusade? The so-called Racial Privacy Initiative, which, if approved by voters, would prohibit the state from collecting most forms of racial data on its citizens. Connerly missed a deadline to get the initiative on this year's ballot, so California voters won't decide the issue until 2004. Expect plenty of fireworks between now and then.
As well there should be. Connerly's latest project is, in some ways, more far-reaching and dangerous than its predecessor. Nor does it take much cogitating to understand why.
California is, by a wide margin, the most populous state in the union. Of 284 million Americans, 12 percent — 34 million — call the state home. Removing California from the mix irreparably compromises any attempt to paint a statistical picture of the United States. If you don't understand California, you cannot understand America.
Yet, that's precisely what Connerly's initiative would accomplish. Under this law, it would be difficult if not impossible to have an informed discussion of the impact of race on migration, education, labor, criminal justice, politics, poverty, home buying, loan seeking, entrepreneurship, unwed motherhood ... the list goes on.
Is the police department engaged in racial profiling? Are black kids showing improvement in the classroom? Are whites fleeing the state? From the corner diner to the newsroom to the university to the statehouse, it will be harder to have those discussions, harder to quantify perceptions with numbers. Because the numbers will no longer exist.
Why, you may wonder, does Connerly consider this a good thing? Because he thinks it will help produce a colorblind America.
A colorblind America is high on the wish list of many conservatives — right up there with two guns in every nightstand and a prayer in every classroom. They bemoan the scourge of hyphenated Americanism and wax eloquent on how much better off we'd be if we were all just Americans, period. If we no longer saw or acknowledged differences in race and culture.
I share their concern over the balkanization of the country. But their frequently proposed solution to that problem — that we ignore difference — is naïve at best. It is also faintly insulting.
I speak from experience, having too frequently encountered white people who wanted me to know they didn't "see" me as black. Intending a compliment, I suppose. Or maybe a promotion. And each time, I wondered the same thing: Why is my heritage something you have to blind yourself to in order for us to have a relationship? Why do you have to pretend I'm not what I quite obviously am before I can earn your good will? If that's the case, maybe your will isn't as good as you think it is.
Shall I pretend Jerry Seinfeld isn't Jewish? Or that Halle Berry isn't a woman? Makes about as much sense.
The truth is that so-called colorblindness is neither possible nor even desirable. One of the great joys of life in this nation is the fact that its culture is actually the rich admixture of many cultures. Why should I ignore that? Why should I fear difference?
Better, I think, to celebrate it. And to treat representatives of those cultures with fairness, equality and compassion. It really is as simple as that.
Or at least, it should be. Instead, Ward Connerly offers this shoddy attempt at social engineering. And it scares me, because I know it will likely prove attractive to those who see it as a way to end American balkanization with a single stroke. It is not. Rather, it's an attempt to enforce by law something that has never been true in fact. Meaning, the belief that race doesn't matter.
But for good and for ill, it does. And believing otherwise doesn't prove you're blind to color. It just proves you're blind.
Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.'s column appears Sunday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: leonardpitts@mindspring.com
In 1991, The Seattle Times asked three journalists to share their thoughts on Martin Luther King's vision of a colorblind society. Intensely personal and very evocative, we hope that these essays will get people talking about King's vision.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
"For those who don't know, Connerly is the black — and he would probably disavow that characterization — activist who spearheaded the successful 1996 drive to end affirmative action in Golden State government and universities."
Ward Connerly is mixed-race. If he calls himself black, he's denying half of his heritage. I know it's politically correct, see Halle Berry to ignore their white heritage. Black Activists have tried to force the Black label on Tiger Woods and ignore his Thai mother.
The attempt at the racial erasing is Stalinist. Pitts is making that attempt. In my experience, a Stalinist in one area is usually a Stalinist in other areas. And the horror of affecting the statistical picture of the United States just is unthinkable. I won't sleep for weeks because of that nightmare (/sarcasm).
And we all know that conservatives are unthinking neanderthals (sarcasm).
Ward Connerly has a lot of courage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.