Ward Connerly responds to Rep. John Dingell

July 20th On July 9, 2003, Ward Connerly--founder and director of the American Civil Rights Institute and the driving force behind California's abandonment of race-based college admissions--received the following letter from Congressman John D. Dingell of Michigan.

Mr. Connerly has asked that Rep. Dingell's letter, which is currently posted at the congressman's website, be given wide publicity, along with Mr. Connerly's response.

Since 1993, Mr. Connerly has been a member of the University of California Board of Regents and is credited with ending race-based admissions at UC. He also led California's successful Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) in 1996. His associate Dr. Richard Ferrier, President of the Declaration Foundation, served as Vice-Chairman in the Proposition 209 campaign, which was strongly endorsed by Ambassador Alan Keyes.

Regent Connerly has been profiled on 60 Minutes, the cover of Parade magazine, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek magazine, and virtually every major news magazine in America. He has also appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Crossfire, Firing Line, Hannity & Colmes, The Crier Report, Meet the Press, Rivera Live, Dateline, Politically Incorrect, NBC Nightly News, CNN, and C-SPAN.

He is the head of a new ballot initiative in California, the Racial Privacy Initiative (RPI). RPI has qualified for the ballot. It would prohibit the state from forcing citizens to declare their race, and would block the collection of race-based data by state agencies. We encourage you to visit the website for the RPI at http://www.racialprivacy.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-2215 July 9, 2003

Mr. Ward Connerly American Civil Rights Coalition P.O. Box 188350 Sacramento, CA 95818

The people of Michigan have a simple message to you: go home and stay there. We do not need you stirring up trouble where none exists.

Michiganders do not take kindly to your ignorant meddling in our affairs. We have no need for itinerant publicity seekers, non-resident troublemakers or self-aggrandizing out-of-state agitators. You have created enough mischief in your own state to last a lifetime.

We reject your "black vs. white" politics that were long ago discarded to the ash heap of history. Your brand of divisive racial politics has no place in Michigan, or in our society. So Mr. Connerly, take your message of hate and fear, division and destruction and leave. Go home and stay there, you're not welcome here.

This mailing was prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense This stationery printed on paper made of recycled fibers (much like the Congressman—WC observation)

I read Ward's Connerly's response. It's fitting. There used to be a time in American history when people believed they they were the citizen of their state first and then their country but it ended with the Civil War. Then we became more than just a collection of people defined by the states we resided in; we became Americans. John Dingell of all people should know this entire Union of ours is our fatherland and I should feel at home anywhere in America. How dare he tell Ward and other people who are not from Michigan to stay out? And if he was principled, pray tell, why hasn't he offered the same advice to Jesse Jackson? Yes, Ward went to Michigan to fight for civil rights and equal justice. So did Martin Luther King Jr. when he travelled to other Southern states besides his native Georgia to effect change. It is a pleasure to recall his admonition to the effect that an injustice in one place is a threat to justice everywhere. And that is why we ARE Americans united by a common set of beliefs. And it is in the name of those beliefs that Ward's challenging the wrong-headed SCOTUS decision to the effect that some bigotry can be sanctioned under the law because "it redresses discrimination." A similar sort of reasoning was employed by the old racists and segregationists of the South to keep blacks in their place. Maybe Congressman Dingell can correct me if I'm wrong, but its my impression his advice to Ward is we should just live with a violation of our American values just like past generations were told to live with Plessy Vs Ferguson that legitimized the ugly and evil structure of Jim Crow racism in our country. To that I say NO. We have a duty to make right a great wrong. Of course Dingell like those in power in the past would like not to see that happen but it is ultimately irrelevant. Power rarely concedes without a demand. And in this instance Ward and other like minded people like him have the right to move about and work anywhere in America to overcome injustice. I would think a taxpayer supported Representative could at least affirm the principle. Instead we get a dressing down of an American constituent. For the record, I would expect to receive courteous treatment and assistance from our federal representatives and senators no matter where I happen to live in America. What has to be kept in mind above all is we are not here to serve them; they are here to serve us and Congressman Dingell's long tenure in Congress has made him forget Ward is not his servant; to the contrary like every other American citizen, Ward is the boss of our public servants. Would that Dingell and rest acted like them, this country would be a far better place. God Bless America.

Ward's response (as it is not covered by the WP/LAT exclusion):

July 21, 2003

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515-2215

Congressman Dingel,

Thank you for such a warm and hospitable welcome to Michigan.

Amendment I of the United States Constitution is, in part, as follows:

Amendment XIV of the Constitution is, in part, as follows:

Over the years, the courts have consistently held that these Amendments, taken together, grant to all American citizens the right to travel freely, to express their views, and to participate in the affairs—short of exercising a vote—of any village and hamlet in the nation. For most, this is so well established as to be beyond question.

Perhaps, you are unaware that I am an American citizen—a distinction from which I derive the rights and privileges enumerated in the Constitutional Amendments noted above. It is quite clear from your reaction to the recent decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court to sanction the use of racial preferences, notwithstanding Amendment XIV, that you have little regard for that Amendment; so I should not be surprised that you would also want to deny me the rights that I enjoy pursuant to the Constitution.

I am obliged to tell you, Congressman, that I, on the other hand, do believe in and honor the Constitution of this nation. And, it confirms that my right to visit Michigan, as a full-fledged American citizen and not simply as a tourist, is not contingent on your invitation. As a taxpaying U.S. citizen, anywhere I set foot on American soil is my "home," just as much as it is yours.

If you would grant me a waiver so that my tax dollars would not be used to support racial discrimination in the State of Michigan, I would more respectfully entertain your impudent advice. Absent that, the term arrogance does not begin to capture the essence of a United States Congressman advising an American citizen to refrain from participating in the affairs of his government. Ironically, your advice is the echo of southern segregationists who sought the comfort of states' rights to practice their discrimination against black Americans. Have you learned nothing about "civil rights" from that horrible chapter in our nation's history?

There is such an eerie similarity between them and you that it bears comment.

George Wallace, Lester Maddox and others who shared their rabid and abhorrent views believed in treating people differently on the basis of skin color…and so do you.
They wanted to practice their brand of racism free from the interference of "meddling, outside agitators"…and so do you.
They called those who disagreed with them and merely wanted to exercise their right to assemble "carpetbaggers" and "non-resident troublemakers" who were "stirring up trouble where none exists"…and so do you.
They were arrogant and intolerant bullies…and so are you.

Your letter is a prime example of why the texture of civil discourse in our nation is so coarse. It is an indication of why Members of Congress need the police to intervene to separate them from fighting. What a terrible example for our children and our grandchildren.

As a member of the Congress, you have the right, I suppose, to send narrow-minded and venomous letters, at taxpayers' expense, to anyone of your choosing. But, you ought to be ashamed of telling any American citizen to "go home and stay there." How dare you!

By promoting the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, those of us who believe in this cause—I among them—are doing what the Constitution of Michigan allows; and you should not be seeking to abridge the right of American citizens to use processes allowed by law to implement their civic beliefs and values. Candidly, if you were true to the oath of office that you have sworn to defend and uphold, you would not be so content to look the other way while Jennifer Gratz, Barbara Grutter and Pat Hamacher were being discriminated against. You would object to the Supreme Court's defiance of the simple command of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that all Americans be treated equally "without regard to race, color or national origin."

The thought does not escape me, Congressman—and it should not you either—that some of my tax dollars contribute to your salary. That makes me an involuntary constituent of yours. Therefore, I must ask, do you treat all of your constituents with such contempt, arrogance and high-handedness, or do you reserve such treatment for the "uppity" ones who insist on using their civil rights to participate in public policymaking?

You say that I am not welcome in Michigan and that the "people of Michigan" don't want me there. I believe you represent the 15th Congressional District of Michigan and nothing else. Longevity has its way of creating delusions of grandeur, and I believe that has happened to you. In addition, I must ask whether you have run your "get out of town" sermon by the hundreds of other Michiganders who have called, written and emailed me to come to Michigan and assist in the restoration of the principle of "equal protection under the law?"

You have said I am "stirring up trouble where none exists." That certainly isn't what I hear from other prominent people in Michigan or what I have read in the dailies of your state. And, it is certainly inconsistent with my observations about Benton Harbor and other racial circumstances in Michigan. It defies credulity that you could be so out of touch with your state as to not recognize the racial tension that lies within, much of which has been engendered by racial preferences at the University of Michigan.

I note with great interest that Reverend Jesse Jackson has announced his intention to open an office of his Rainbow Coalition in Benton Harbor. Would you please be kind enough to send me a copy of your letter to him demanding that he "go home and stay there." I understand that he is also a non-resident of Michigan.

Since you so proudly posted your letter to me on your website, I trust that you will do the same with my response.

With equally good wishes.

Sincerely,

Ward Connerly

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.