|
|
|
 |
||
 |
||
|
Columns
/ Current
Issue / Goldberg
File / Nota
Bene / Subscribe
/ Ad
Info / Washington
Bulletin / Home
|
||
|
4.17.00 4.13.00 4.13.00 4.11.00 4.11.00 4.07.00 4.05.00 4.04.00 4.03.00 4.03.00 3.28.00 3.24.00 3.20.00 3.20.00 3.17.00
|
 |
 |
|
|
4/17/00
3:20 p.m. |
|||
|
National Review: Congratulations are in order. The University of California has released its enrollment figures for Fall 2000, and the big news is that there will be more minorities enrolled in at UC schools than there were under racial preferences. This is a victory for you. Ward Connerly: That’s right-as long as we can assume that nobody is doing anything designed to get around Prop. 209 or SP-1 [the UC regents’ measure, written by Connerly, which outlawed racial preferences in admissions]. I have tried to be as vigilant as I can be to make sure that this system is being implemented with integrity, and I’m fairly convinced that it is. NR: The opponents of Prop. 209, of course, predicted that the opposite would happen, that the UC system would become entirely white and Asian. Connerly: That hasn’t happened. There seems to be, however, a multi-tiered system developing, with Asians and whites at Berkeley and UCLA, and blacks and Latinos enrolling in larger numbers at Riverside, Irvine and Santa Cruz. But it doesn’t nearly rise to the level that the proponents of preferences thought would happen. The real story here is that the number of Asian students being admitted to the more selective institutions is increasing at a rapid rate--something like 32 or 35 percent overall in the whole system. And I don’t say that with any dismay at all. As Ronald Reagan said, I don’t care if every seat’s taken by Asian students, if they’ve earned the right to be there. But it does suggest that Asians as a group are performing at a level that is greatly surpassing everyone else. Another significant factor is that the number who declined to state [their race on their applications] is also increasing, and is rapidly approaching the point of doubling what it was in 1997. NR: What accounts for the overall increase in minority enrollment in the UC system? California’s 4 percent automatic-admissions plan hasn’t gone into effect yet, so it must be something else. Connerly: The overall increase is the result of a lot of outreach on our part to make sure that these students know that they are welcomed at UC. The number of quote-unquote minority students is slightly above what the number was [in 1997] before SP-1 and 209 kicked in. What you have is a redistribution of those students. If you go back and you read what Tom Sowell wrote in his books about higher education a few years ago, he could not have been more on target. NR: Would you mind bringing us up to date on the progress of your Florida Civil Rights Initiative? Connerly: We are now tied up in the Florida supreme court. We presented our oral arguments on March 6, and we are simply waiting for the courts to decide whether the ballot language meets the “single-subject” rule. And it’s anybody’s guess as to how they will rule. [If the ruling goes our way,] we will have until about the end of the first week in June to make it. If they say that [the initiative’s] language doesn’t meet the single-subject rule, in the process of saying that they will give us some idea of what we have to do to craft the right language for 2002. NR: Creating Equal reminded me just how little help you received from the GOP during the Prop. 209 campaign. That happened again in Florida — Jeb Bush proposed his “One Florida” plan mainly to deflate support for your Florida Civil Rights Initiative. Why are Republicans so squeamish about this issue? Connerly: First of all, they genuinely are afraid that they are going to alienate Hispanic, women, and black voters. And that’s even though I can prove to them beyond a shadow of a doubt that 209 did not harm Republicans in California. I’ve had a very exhaustive study done that looked at voting patterns over the past 12 years in California. Proposition 187, for example, gets bashed by Republicans as turning off Latinos, and blamed for Dan Lundgren’s loss [in the 1998 governor’s race]. The fact is, Prop. 187 was not responsible for Dan Lundren losing. The real problem was that Republican women stayed home. I think that Republicans are just afraid that they are going to alienate those voters that they’re trying to appeal to by their rhetoric of “compassionate conservatism,” “inclusion,” and “diversity.” I have been snubbed royally by George W. I’ve been told by some of his henchmen that if he was seen with me publicly it would somehow appear to contradict his “I’m a uniter not a divider” theme. Republicans don’t want to be in the position where it looks like they “don’t want” minority voters. And if they think that means ignoring people Connerly and Wilson and Ron Unz and others who have championed causes that might alienate black or Latino voters, they deal with us like we’re the plague. NR: What advice would you give to George W.? How do you sell colorblindness in the political marketplace? Connerly: First of all, he needs to sit down and understand the facts. So far he has been relying on a lot of generalities. He has met with people, who I will not name, who have presumed to be allies of mine. But with all due deference, you don’t get the fullness of the issue by meeting with people who weren’t even involved in 209 or 1-200 or Florida’s initiative. They know the intellectual arguments but they don’t know the details. Bush has to spend the time it takes to invest in the issue, to understand the nuances of race, to be comfortable speaking about it. Bush is a charming guy, and I think that brings him a certain amount of goodwill. He can say, “This is one nation and I don’t believe in preferences, I want inclusion but we’re not going to get there by treating people differently.” He can make that sell, but he has to understand the nuances of the issue and draw a clear distinction between himself and Al Gore. Al Gore is waiting to be chopped down at the knees on this issue. George W. should say to him, “Mr. Gore, you keep talking about your support of affirmative action. Do you support giving 300 extra points to some students who apply to the University of California in the name of affirmative action? Do you support that?” Just take it to him on specific examples. Voters are very intolerant of politicians who use race for exploitative reasons. But if you do it from a point of principle — if you stake out a position, if you say you think [preferences are] going to be bad for the country, that you think they are bad for the people presumed to be their beneficiaries, that it marginalizes people-if you argue it that way, the voters understand it and they will follow. NR: I can’t let this end without mentioning the episode in your book when, after a meeting at the White House, Al Gore tried to crush your hand. Would you mind sharing that with our readers? Connerly: We had had a strong disagreement in the meeting — and this is all on transcript. Gore had said that “Evil lies coiled in the human spirit,” and that we’re all prone to bigotry and prejudice. He said, “That’s why we need affirmative action.” I thought about it and said, “Mr. Vice President, that is truly a frightening thought. You’re basically saying that we need the government to protect us from ourselves. And I believe just the opposite-that we are basically good people. There’s racism, to be certain, but we’re basically good people. That’s the whole premise of self government.” He looked at me with an “I pity you” kind of look. When the meeting was over, Bill Clinton grabs my right hand, and tucks his left hand under my elbow — you know, the two-handed shake — to show how warm and fuzzy he is. Gore, on the other hand, grabs my hand and just squeezes it hard. I mean really hard. And gave me a funny looking smile as he did so. I came away the impression that this guys is a hateful guy and he will do anything at all to chop you down if he doesn’t like you. He is a hateful man and I don’t often use terms like that to describe people. But Al Gore is a guy that frightens me. NR: The title of your book — Creating Equal — is interesting. The implication seems to be that the task of creating a society where race doesn’t matter is a difficult one, and that our progress in this area shouldn’t be taken for granted. Connerly: The inspiration for that title came from a speech Ronald Reagan made in August of ’92. He was in Houston addressing the Republican National Convention. He said, “Whether we come from poverty or wealth, whether we are Afro-American, or Irish-American, Christian or Jewish, from big cities or small towns, in the eyes of God we are all created equal. But in America that is not enough — we have to be equal in the eyes of each other.” What I interpreted President Reagan to be saying is that we have to create this condition of “equal,” and we do it as individuals as we enter into transactions with our fellow man. It is up to us to create equal. |
|||
|
|||
|
 |
Columns
/ Current
Issue / Goldberg
File / Nota
Bene |
|
|
National Review 215 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10016 212-679-7330 Customer Service: 815-734-1232.
Contact
Us.
|
||
ard Connerly, the chairman
of the American Civil Rights Institute and a regent of the University
of California, headed the Proposition 209 and I-200 ballot campaigns,
which prohibited race and gender preferences in California and Washington
state, respectively. He is the author of 