![[Home]](/wiki.gif)
American Civil Rights Coalition January 27 2004 LetterAmerican Civil Rights Coalition January 27 2004 Letter
 | Microsoft Windows XP Registry Guide |
 | Microsoft Windows XP Inside Out |
 | Windows XP for Dummies |
 | Windows XP Home Edition - The Missing Manual |
 | DVD - Beginner's Windows XP 2004 on DVD |
 | DVD - Windows XP / Server 2003 Internals Update |
 | Video - Windows Xp Home Edition Level 2 (2002) |
 | Video - Windows Xp Home Edition Level 1 (2002) |
 | Video - Windows Xp Home Edition Level 3 (2000) |
 | Working Smarter With Microsoft Word For Windows-windows Xp [MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION] |
Subjects > ... > Politics > American Civil Rights Coalition
January 27, 2004
January 27,2004
Dear Supporter:
As a Regent of the University of California, I have seen first-hand the devastating effects that race preferences can have on young people. Contrary to what the proponents of "affirmative action" would lead you to believe, the issue of race preferences is not just about statistics and data, "leveling the playing field" or providing "opportunities" for disadvantaged "minorities." Real lives are radically affected. Dreams of attending the college of one's choice are shattered. Incalculable social and economic costs result when decisions are made about individuals based on the color of their skin or the origin of their ancestors.
In 1994,1 immersed myself in the admissions process of the University of California. I met high- school students with bags under their eyes because they had spent all-night sessions studying for tests or writing essays to enhance their chances for admission to the UC campus of their choice. I met parents who were working two and three jobs and taking out second mortgages on their homes to ensure that their children would receive a quality college education. I read admissions applications that had taken literally weeks to prepare. I saw the tears on the face of a young girl with a 4.2 grade point average and a 1480 SAT when she read the letter denying her admission to UC Berkeley. I saw the resentment of her parents when they read that same letter and reached the conclusion that the "diversity" objective mentioned in the letter was a code word for "affirmative action." I learned from those experiences that America will never solve its problem of race by discriminating against high- achieving Asian and white students to somehow improve college opportunities for lesser-achieving black and Hispanic students.
Based on these experiences, in 1995 I convinced a majority of my colleagues on the Board of Regents to eliminate race preferences at UC. A year and a half later, that success was expanded throughout the state of California when the voters passed the statewide ballot initiative Proposition 209—I chaired the ballot's campaign—by a margin of 55% to 45%.
In J998, we convinced the people of the state of Washington to take similar action and to approve Initiative 200 (1-200), which they did by a margin of 59% to 41%. 1-200 mirrored Proposition 209. Subsequent to the passage of 1-200, the governor of Florida administratively ended preferences in that state by adopting "One Florida"—an Executive Order that was intended to preempt the Florida Civil Rights initiative, an initiative that we were circulating.
From 1995 to the present, we have waged an effective campaign to educate the public about the differences between "affirmative action" and race preferences, urging clarity in distinguishing between the two. In one public opinion poll after another, the American people have expressed their confirmation of our conviction that preferences in public education, public employment and public contracting are morally wrong, unfair, and violate the constitutional command of equal treatment under the law for every American—as well as the principle that individual merit should be the basis for achievement in American society.
With this history and background, we were justifiably optimistic that the Supreme Court of the United States would render a favorable decision when it announced its intention to hear the cases involving Barbara Grutter and Jennifer Gratz and the University of Michigan earlier this year. A decision in favor of the plaintiffs would shift our nation's focus from the pursuit of skin color "diversity" to respect for individual merit and the principle of equal treatment by the government regardless of race or ethnic background.
Our reason for optimism was all the more reasonable when placed in the context that the Supreme Court is often described as a "conservative" court and the decisions would be rendered during an era in which there is a conservative Republican president and Republicans control both houses of the United States Congress.
But, as we now know, our optimism was misplaced. On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan (UM) and allowed the continued use of race preferences. The simply horrible decisions of the Court will profoundly affect the lives of our children and grandchildren for at least the next 25 years.
The question for our generation is, what are we to do about these decisions? We can accept them without protest, wring our hands and complain, or actively seek to negate them wherever we can, reminding ourselves that by their actions the people of California and Washington and the governor of Florida have already exempted themselves from the Grutter/Gratz?Create decisions.
For those who understand the human consequences of race preferences, the choice is clear: We must begin anew the campaign that was started with the passage of Proposition 209. The people must seize the initiative to erase the stain of racial discrimination; we cannot rely on the president, the Congress or the Supreme Court to do it for us. Whether the victim of racial discrimination is a black person denied admission to "Ole Miss" because of skin color or a white person denied admission to UM because of race preferences, the injustice is no less.
On December 11, 2003, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers approved a petition that will circulate among the people of Michigan for a statewide vote in November 2004. This civil rights initiative, as in Washington and Florida, is patterned after California's Proposition 209. If approved by the people of that state, race preferences will be prohibited in Michigan. On January 12,2004, the campaign began to qualify this initiative for a vote of the people.
With your help, ACRC can fulfill its mission to educate the people of Michigan and in other states of the pernicious effects of racial preferences. I ask for your financial contribution, and I also ask you to help us enlist the support of others. Make no mistake, any campaign to end racial preferences will be costly and hotly contested, because the stakes are high. The proponents of race preferences understand what is on the line. If we prevail, the momentum will return to us, as it was before the Supreme Court handed down its infamous UM decisions. That is why the pro-preferences crowd is raising $7 million to defeat initiatives to restore equal opportunity, even before one has qualified for the ballot in any of the 50 states.
To fight back, we must raise approximately $1.2 million, to aid signature-gathering campaigns in Michigan or other states. While a small amount of this budget can be generated locally, the bulk of the financing for opponents and proponents of preferences will be from out-of-state sources in any battle. Our issue may be fought in one state at a time, but it is truly national in scope. That is why I am asking for your help to not only send financial support, but also to talk to friends and associates and urge them to do the same. No check will be too small.
Just think of the success we could have if thousands of supporters could be mobilized to send $20 or $50. With each signature for a statewide ballot initiative typically costing about $2, a $20 contribution is the equivalent of purchasing ten signatures for a campaign. Any statewide initiative campaign will need hundreds of thousands of signatures to be a success.
In addition to sending a check to assist our campaign, we are asking all Michiganders to sign the enclosed petition and enlist others to sign. If you obtain at least 10 valid signatures, you will have made the equivalent of an additional $20 contribution to our campaign.
Please join us in this historic endeavor. If you have any ideas about how to achieve our objectives, just give me a call at (916) 444-2278.
Sincerely,
^L^--^A_l^-^^z^^t^^
/ ^
Ward Connerly
P.O. Box 188350 • Sacramento, CA 95818 • 916. 444-2278 • 916. 444-2279 fax • www.acrc1.org
See also Windows XP , Windows XP News ...
Communion; A True Story
More About This Book
Alien Agenda
By Jum Marrs
Alien Agenda is the silk thread leading the way through the maze of UFO literature into the heart of the UFO controversy. While he begins with the premise that the existence of UFOs cannot be denied, Jim Marrs (author of Crossfire, the mother of all John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy books) boldly strides into the battle over what UFOs are and why they are here. Marrs's investigative skills are invaluable in this re-examination of questions that have been overlooked, unaddressed, or unsatisfactorily resolved.
[More About This Book]?Create
Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster
By David Icke
[More About This Book]?Create
|
|
Interested in Challenges And Strategy By Bill Gates?