MI: Preface by 209 co-author Tom Wood to BAMN's assertions

Preface by 209 co-author Tom Wood; see Americans Against Discrimination and Preferences (www.aadap.org). Thomas E. Wood, President and Moderator

The BAMN email below bundles together a number of errors that were made by the No on 209! campaign in California.

Opponents of 209 were desperate to depict it as a prohibition of affirmative action, but the charge that CCRI/209 was "anti-affirmative action" was rejected by the California courts, because the measure prohibits preferences but not affirmative action, and there are some forms of affirmative action (e.g., race-neutral outreach) that are not preferential.

BAMN also repeats what was perhaps the silliest argument that opponents made against 209--that there are no racial preferences benefiting minorities, and that the measure is therefore misleading. I once pointed out in an early debate on 209 at USC (my opponent that night was Erwin Chemerinksy and the moderator was Susan Estrich) that this argument was ridiculous, because if there are no preferences to prohibit, opponents have no reason to oppose the measure, since the measure could not possibly have any effect. We didn't hear much of that argument after that debate, but I notice with interest that BAMN is making it again in Michigan.

In BAMN's case, the argument is conjoined with the argument that what supporters of MCRI call preferences are simply race-conscious efforts to redress past and ongoing discrimination, so what the proponents of MCRI regard as preferences aren't really preferences. BAMN also claims that court opinions, including the recent Supreme Court opinions in Grutter and Gratz, support this claim.

Nothing could be further from the truth. No court has ever suggested that the kinds of affirmative action programs that are targeted by measures like 209 aren't preferential. In the Grutter-Gratz litigation, as in all the other litigation, the only question was whether the preferences met the test of strict scrutiny.

In the U-Michigan litigation, BAMN and others labored mightily to get the courts to hold that UM's preferences were not really preferences, but simply redress for past and ongoing discrimination. The courts summarily dismissed those arguments. BAMN is either in massive denial or is being blatantly dishonest in claiming that the courts ruled otherwise.

Subject: Organizing Meeting 7pm Tonight - Michigan Union - Defeat Ward Connerly!

ORGANIZING MEETING, 7pm tonight, Sophia B. Jones Room, Michigan Union, -Campaigning for DAAP >-Mobilizing for March 22, ---------------------------------

>On March 22nd, we the students, faculty and staff at the University of Michigan will have an opportunity to stop Ward Connerly's Michigan anti-affirmative action ballot petition, and defend our historic victory in Grutter v. Bollinger.

On that day at 8:30 AM, a Lansing judge will be asked to uphold the law that governs petition regulations, and rule to invalidate Ward Connerly's deceptive petitions. This would make null and void all 4,200 petitions they have mailed out, and every signature they have so far collected, and Connerly and his supporters will have to start over.

Background: (Please reply to this email if you would like more info, or to reserve a seat on a bus)

On March 22nd, Judge Paula Manderfield (R) will hear two lawsuits filed against Ward Connerly's petitions, one filed by BAMN, the Michigan Legislative Black Caucus, United for Equality and Affirmative Action, and two Detroit AFSCME union locals, and the other filed by Citizens for a United Michigan, a coalition headed up by retired Brigadier General Mike Rice, and includes the Detroit NAACP, the Michigan NOW, and the ACLU.

The basis of both lawsuits is that Connerly's petition violates a set of legal statutes set out by the Michigan legislature that all ballot petitions must adhere to. For example, there is a requirement that if a person wants to amend a section of the state's constitution, they must include the language of the section they want to amend on the face of the petition, as well as how they would like to amend it.

Connerly's petition violates this statute. This is not a mistake- it is a deliberate omission. In line with deceptively calling his anti-civil rights effort the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative", he wants to falsely make it appear that with this initiative, he and his supporters are putting in a civil rights clause into the! Michigan Constitution, instead of asserting the truth, which is that he seeks to amend the already existing civil rights clause in order to end affirmative action, equal opportunity and fairness. This is why instead of putting the actual current and existing language of the equal protection clause of the Michigan constitution on the face of the petition as is required, he put a misleading and deceptive summary of his intent in order to mask the fact that he is attempting to amend an existing section of the constitution. Affirmative action, which his petition aims to outlaw, is not even mentioned in the petition language.

Ward Connerly committed the same omission when he made a failed attempt in 2000 to get the same deceptive anti-affirmative action initiative language on the ballot in Florida.

It is for this exact reason, deliberate and conscious deception, that the Florida Supreme Court invalidated his petitions, stating that Connerly's petitions engage in "false advertisement" because they do "not provide equal protection of the law, they take away the cloak of protection from victims of discrimination." (from the FLA Supreme Court decision, quoted on p.16 of the legal brief filed by BAMN, UEAA, Legislative Black Caucus, AFSCME locals 207, 312.) This ruling was the end of Ward Connerly's campaign in Florida.

Additionally, Ward Connerly's misleading petition language referring to so-called "preferences" for minorities and women is simply a lie. "The Supreme Court held in Grutter v. Bollinger, and the facts show that affirmative action is not a preference, but the proponents of this petition insist on banning preferences that do not exist." (p. 10, footnote 5, BAMN brief) Women make 73 cents to every dollar of men. Black and Latino workers still make substantially less than their white counterparts. The main obstacles to equal opportunity are discrimination and bias against black and other minority people and women of all races. Our fight must be aimed at ending bias, prejudice, and institutionalized patterns of race and gender discrimination through the use of positive affirmative action policies.

The other effect of Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative, if it were to pass, would be to undermine the constitutionally protected autonomy of the University of Michgian and the other Michigan state universities.

While Mary Sue Coleman has repeatedly stated how harmful this ballot proposition will be to the University of Michigan, the University administration, because of its legal concerns, is relying on individual students, faculty, and staff to be active in defending our affirmative action programs, so essential to maintaining a diverse and integrated campus, and defending academic and intellectual freedom throughout the University.

There will be three buses leaving from the Michigan Union at 7AM, and returning to Ann Arbor at 12 Noon. The buses are open to all students, faculty and staff, regardless of political views, and will provide an excellent educational opportunity for anyone who attends the hearing. *****If you are interested in coming to the hearing, or have any questions, please contact K*** **** at ks*****.edu******

If you would like someone to come to your student group meeting and make a presentation on the facts surrounding the courtdate, please email *****.

The outcome of this hearing will have a critical impact on the future of our University. Hope to see you March 22nd at 8:30 AM in Lansing. (reference websites at bottom)

Sincerely, > >======================== >Websites for Reference: >======================== > >*To read or download the BAMN, UEAA, Michigan Legislative Black Caucus and AFSCME union locals 207 and 312 brief, visit:

http://bamn.com/doc/2004/do.asp?040219-brief-in-support-of-petition.asp or call ****

*For a copy of the Ci! tizens for a United Michigan (CFUM) brief, call Brigadier General Rice at or call Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone at *****(they will fax you a copy)

*To view Ward Connerly's petition, visit http://mcri2004.org/Print%20Petition%201.1.04%20-%20Petition.pdf

>*The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary- BAMN http://bamn.com

*Citizens for a United Michigan- (CFUM) http://www.oneunitedmichigan.org > >*Ward Connerly's group (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative- (MCRI) >http://www.michigancivilrights.org/ > >*DAAP- Defend Affirmative Action ! Party http://www.umich.edu/~daap > >*View Connerly's ad in this past Sunday's News and Free Press >http://www.mcri2004.org/03072004adcopy.pdf > >+++ > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Protest Ward Connerly in Lansing Saturday (3/20) >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:45:55 -0500 >From: >Reply-To: >To: BAMN Info List > >==================================================== >Picket and Rally to Stand Up for Affirmative Action! >Say NO! to Ward Connerly's Effort >to Outlaw Affirmative Action in Michigan! >==================================================== >(Reply if you are interested in coming to Lansing) > >Picket and Rally >12 Noon, Saturday, March 20, 2004 >The Marriot, 300 M.A.C. Avenue >East Lansing, Michigan >(Just blocks from the MSU campus!) > >Ward Connerly, the architect of the attack on affirmative action in >California and Michigan, will be speaking to his Michigan followers at the >Marriot in East Lansing on Saturday (3/20). Join the picket and rally >outside the hotel. Tell Connerly and the racists who back him that we won't >go back toward segregation in Michigan. Tell him that Michigan stands >proudly on the progess we have made toward equality and integration. We will >defend our progress. > >Spread the word. Forward this email. Every individual and organization that >stands in defense of affirmative action should be present for this picket >and rally. > >____________________________________________________________ >Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, >Integration and Immigrant Rights, >And Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) >www.bamn.com - letters@bamn.com

So, are you saying that "breaking news" is only that "news" which comes immediately as it is released? But not other articles which were published, perhaps at 3am this morning?

It is breaking news. It's happening now in MI. So, write to Jim and get me banned for a week.

So tell your state chapter about it

So, are you saying that "breaking news" is only that "news" which comes immediately as it is released? But not other articles which were published, perhaps at 3am this morning?

If it only concerns a state and is not life threatening nor being covered by any media outlet OUTSIDE the state or city in question...its not BREAKING NEWS. Breaking news is for national news storys

So tell your state chapter about it .

I did that also. Please tell me what you think "breaking news" means. How do you define it? Is it a "hot off the presses/not to be found anywhere else at the moment" type of thing? Or?

is not life threatening nor being covered by any media outlet OUTSIDE the state or city in question...its not BREAKING NEWS.

Thanks for that clarification. I debated this; but figuring the U-Michigan matter was involved, and it was a "nationwide" event (Supremes); it might be breaking news. Thanks for the clarification.

Can I ask you another question? If say an issue is covered in a state newspaper; but not covered at CNN -- for example -- it is not breaking news. Do I have this right?

What I do when I want something to post to a certain state (and I'm not there), I FReepmail a familiar person on the list and ask them to do it.

Where do I sign this? I'm in MI.

What I do when I want something to post to a certain state (and I'm not there), I FReepmail a familiar person on the list and ask them to do it.

A sound method. Although I'm not in MI; I'm here in state with Ward Connerly (initiator of the MCRI). Do you know if I have broken a FR rule through being non-resident MI posting to the MI forum? Still trying to get clear on FR posting guidelines.

Where do I sign this? I'm in MI.

I'm very glad you asked!

http://www.michigancivilrights.org/

Phone numbers, addresses, information and data.

>>Do you know if I have broken a FR rule through being non-resident MI posting to the MI forum? Still trying to get clear on FR posting guidelines.<<

Actually, I'm not sure! But after I sign it, I'll post the link for you on the MI board.

Yesterday, Section9 was trying to send beer to the IDF in congrats for the great job they did. I looked on the Israel board, found a FReeper I had spoken with before and FReepmailed her with a ping. She ping a few others and it worked very well.

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.