Ward Connerly Under Fire
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.”
According to Gratz, the organizations “ceased almost entirely” doing projects related to their mission “in part because of Mr. Connerly’s salary and legal fees related to the tax investigations.” ACRI also had problems making payroll. Gratz believes if Connerly had reduced his salary “on a level commensurate with the organizations’ current revenue” when problems began, the employees would have received their checks on time.
Gratz accused Connerly of displaying “erratic behavior” and making threats, and discouraged her and other employees from revealing financial irregularities. Connerly denied the allegations, although he acknowledged ACRI was having financial problems. He told the New York Times that Gratz was just a “disgruntled former employee” who wanted to replace him as head of the organization. The allegations are disappointing to those who supported ACRI.
I became acquainted with Connerly after I reviewed his book, Creating Equal: My Fight Against Race Preferences, for Townhall.com in 2003. He sent an e-mail thanking me for it, and I set out on a mission to publicly oppose a practice that had prompted the civil rights movement: government-mandated racial discrimination. Racial preferences go a step further in lowering standards for certain minorities. Connerly was vilified for opposing a practice that is demeaning and condescending to black Americans. People couldn’t understand why a black man wanted to get rid of a policy that “helped” blacks. They called him a “con man” and a “lawn jockey.”
Connerly began his campaign against racial preferences almost 20 years ago. In 1993, Governor Pete Wilson appointed him to the University of California (UC) Board of Regents, and Connerly soon realized UC used racial quotas in admissions. He led the campaign to get Proposition 209 — a measure that would bar the government from granting preferences to and discriminating against individuals or groups in employment, contracting, and education on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin — on the state ballot.
On November 5, 1996, 54 percent of Californians barred their government from using racial preferences. Connerly moved on to other states. In 1998, 58 percent of voters in Washington state passed a similar measure. In 2006, 58 percent of voters in Michigan did the same (although the Sixth Circuit overturned the law last year). In 2008, 58 percent of Nebraska voters chose to end the practice in government. In 2010, voters in Arizona barred preferences by nearly 60 percent. On November 6, 2012, Oklahoma voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to bar the government from treating people differently in employment, contracting, and education based on race.
Eliminating racial bean-counting in government is a righteous cause, and I hope advocates don’t lose heart because of the accusations against Connerly. The fight continues. On February 13, the Ninth Circuit — which recently overturned a California voter-approved law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman — heard oral arguments in a lawsuit against California’s Proposition 209. Although the measure became law 15 years ago, groups still challenge it. A race-neutral government must deeply annoy them.
The accusations against Connerly undoubtedly confirm the worst opinions of him and possibly refute the best. Like Gratz, however, I remain committed to the mission, which is bigger and much more important than one man. The government has no business bestowing and denying benefits to individuals based on the color of their skin. Blacks, Hispanics, and other preferred minorities might benefit now, but the government has the power to harm these groups as well.
Individuals can hold whatever biases and prejudices they wish. Who cares? Humans perceive reality, and that will never change. But laws and government policy must be colorblind. A colorblind government limits the impact of personal biases and prejudices.
The Goverment is far from “color blind” If you are “White” are the goverment thinks you are a Millionaire, related to one, or Not needing any Goverment assistance..
Ms. Barber, it is refreshing to see a lady like you take the position you do on this particular subject.
I wish there were more ladies like you that did.
Your article also saddens me to read, concerning Ward Connerly. There seems to be some fire under the smoke, and the message Mr Connerly is advocating will be sullied because of it.
This issue has been personal to me in the last few years.
Keep up the good work!
You’ve hit the nail on the head Ms. Barber: it is just as stupid to ask a man to stand on a pedestal by race as it is to ask him to stand in a ditch. To me the most dangerous aspect of racism is that of being a language and that language is a double-edged sword.
Having someone else create a stereotype, especially a de jure and institutionalized one that puts one out there as an “other,” no matter how complimentary and well-meaning is simply dangerous. We have now had as many decades pass between the World War I era Fed. workplace Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era as has passed since the Civil Rights era itself; and almost as much time between the landmark 1892 Plessy and 1954 Brown decisions.
At some point we must declare a year zero rather than employing cheap psychology that “proves” racism using a scorecard and weird and impossible to prove concepts like “white privilege” No one in this country will ever succeed in the long run by racial huddling. It has obvious short-term ego-soothing and financial benefits but worse long-term negatives; re-institutionalizing racism as a “help” is like putting a splint on a healthy leg and leaving the broken one ignored simply because it is unpopular to admit the leg is broken.
We now have decades of throwing immense sums of money at problems that are caused by value systems rather than racism. One cannot inculcate loving a visit to a bookstore into a population by gov’t mandate or similarly promote curiosity for curiosity’s sake. No one did such things to the British in the heady Victorian era – this is a job for parents and telling one’s children they live in a racist country where they have to work ten times as hard as a white guy to make it and then having this exist as an urban myth across all sectors of black America is a disaster.
‘At some point’ IS the point. Affirmative Action was needed at the time but my opinion is that it should have come to a close around 15 or so years ago.
The government has no business bestowing and denying benefits to individuals based on the color of their skin. Blacks, Hispanics, and other preferred minorities might benefit now, but the government has the power to harm these groups as well.
That type of “benefit” handed out by overweening government is no benefit at all. It’s more like an albatross around your neck.
Anyone who steps off the Left’s plantation, steps away from the accepted body of cant, may well be targeted for destruction.
Look at the job that was done on Clarence Thomas when he was up for appointment to the Supreme Court. (Thomas is well known for his opposition to Affirmative Action)
Look at the job being attempted on Allen West who won’t regurgitate the lockstep dogma.
Since West refuses to see himself as a victim, the long knives are out, even claims he isn’t authentically black.
Anita Hill was and is an Evangelical Christian and she told the truth.
It was not our intention to end the relationship with LaShawn, but to put things on hold for awhile to enable ACRI to restructure. It had been our intention to ask her to resume blogging soon. It is very unfortunate that LaShawn would react as she did with such limited – and false – information. Even the smallest pancake has two sides. Remember that, LaShawn, as you read the New York Times.
It was not our intention to end the relationship with LaShawn, but to put things on hold for awhile to enable ACRI to restructure. It had been our intention to ask her to resume blogging soon.
La Shawn obviously disagrees. Maybe there has been an unfortunate, good-faith misunderstanding; maybe one party is clearly in the wrong.
Ward Connerly, is it okay with you if La Shawn posts the email in question?
“Blacks, Hispanics, and other preferred minorities might benefit now, but the government has the power to harm these groups as well.” I disagree minorities and individuals there in are being harmed by these policies. I know of individuals whos superior performance was called into question, due to the obvious tokenism elsewhere in the organization. I have seen Hispanics that were ready for promotion, passed over in favor of Blacks solely for the numbers. Most often both left the organization one for fairer promotion opportunities, the other because of failure.
There is a very particular form of insanity practiced by the left where they consider that, in that employing a principle that relies solely on RACISM for its implementation, you are somehow fighting Racism.
In response to Ward’s comment, I didn’t receive any indication that ACRI intended to resume my services “soon.” The Friday evening e-mail was a short-notice termination. But it’s not personal; it’s business. I wrote about a news story that appeared in the NYT. The allegations, though they might be false, are newsworthy.
I am saddened and hope the allegations are proven false. If not, I suspect Mr. Connerly will be the target of the bias residing at the other end of the spectrum from affirmative action.
Bias is bias, but some delude themselves into thinking “doing good” is mitigating (end justifying means). Besides abundant evidence that the good promised by affirmative action is illusory and actually harming the targets, the carefully chosen rhetorical devices mask another truth. Bias for one can only be accomplished by executing bias against another. The government carrying out such policies, and masquerading them as justice, is just plain evil.
Ironically, the proof will be in the treatment Mr. Connerly experiences if the allegations are true. The left will try to destroy him–personally and professionally. They will gleefully use the full force of the government in that crusade. He will be targeted with hate and tactics that would never be used with a comparable wrongdoer at a nonprofit that fits the ideology of the church of progressivism. He will experience the mirror image of affirmative action, but the message that conveys will be completely lost on the zealots.
I regret the position that Ward Connerly finds himself in. Whether through his own doing or not. Ever since I became aware of him in the late eighties, I have always, and still do, hold him in high regard. You too, Ms Barber. It is not easy to swim against the stream. Hell, I thought that he would have made a better candidate than Herman Cain. Still feel that way.
Wow! You don’t really know anything about Connerly do you? And you have no idea about who would be a good president either. Who’s next for you, Fred Sanford?
Unlike Obama, a President Fred Sanford at least would have real world business experience and wouldn’t support policies that kill small business owners.
People are prone to “halo effect” bias; if someone does something bad, then they are bad and everything they do is bad. This is made worse by the tendency, and I will blame the left more than the right, to engage in personal attacks and to indict motives rather than debate issues. An example is that Watergate created a negative halo effect for Nixon, he’s viewed as generally evil. But a PBS special a couple of years back did a nice job of showing the complexity of his presidency – some good, some bad. Here in Colorado, we have a Tax Payers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR) and the author was recently convicted of tax-evasion charges. Liberals, who hate TABOR, cheered.
I think principled conservatives try to stick with issues rather than personalities or partisanship. For example, TABOR is a good thing but Bruce broke the law and needs to go to jail. Similarly, Mr. Connerly has done some good work; if he has played games with ACRI’s finances, he needs to be held accountable. Where’s the conflict?
It saddens me to see the once able and willing citizens of the U.S.A. willingly choose the shackles of the Socialist plantation. Mr. Connerly’s predicament is of his own making and while it is egregious, it is not entirely unexpected. When you step off the plantation you become a target for repudiation and destruction. It may never come out to light that his detractors and defamers are guilty of working to see his destruction. But had Mr. Connerly kept to his principles and worked in the light of day these acts could not have become a reality.
There will come a time when the citizens awaken again to their situation. It will be a revelation if they see the truth about how they got to where they are.
Connerly did it all to himself, period. It’s his most loyal employee who is suing him. He got caught using his non-profit for his own personal gain. That’s called corruption.
Affirmative Action is a typical left wing moonbat “Orwellian double think” in that while proclaiming itself to be righting Racisms wrongs it is in itself one of the most Racist actions that any organization can ever instigate.
Good to see La Shawn Barber contributing to PJMedia, Ive read some of here commentary at Booker Rising.
Mr. Connerly supports same-sex marriage but Ms Barber knows this and has still worked for him for years, while writing about family. Hmmmm…
Barack Obama supports sodomy, but many “anti-gay” Black Christians voted for him.
Hmmm…
Ms Barber, was there ever a need for Affirmative Action?
government programs that give handouts for perceived wrongs have morphed into the racket of the last half-century, and beyond. that, my friends, is what is dragging our great country down. affirmative action, the v.a.w.a., and countless others are sucking us dry. once started, government largesse programs only grow and feed and suck at uncle sugar’s table. they never get smaller, and never go away. that’s why we are instructed to be a country of equals. no special people needed or wanted.
as one can see from the european riots, trying to even cut back in the smallest on the ‘free stuff’ will cause riots, murder, lie/cheat/steal, you name it. ‘special’ groups of people get used to handouts and they stagnate, as we see in this present situation. obama will cut our brave military to the bone, but no mention of real entitlement (handout) reform mentioned.
You need to learn the difference between entitlements and ‘handouts’. Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. Medicare D, oil subsidizes are handouts.
Mr. Connerly may have brought sorrow to us, disappointing our best hopes for him and for what should be called the American ethic, but Ms. Barber retrieves our hope with her clear sight and her restrained statement of the facts of Mr. Connerly’s individual failure. She demonstrates that a setback is not a defeat. Thank you, Ms. Barber.