Letter from Ward Connerly to Karl Rove

I know that there must be much on your plate these days, and one of the tasty morsels must be the question of what to do about the University of Michigan cases now pending before the Supreme Court. As one who has devoted a considerable amount of his time, particularly in recent years, to the issue at hand, I want to offer my perspective on the matter. I am certain that nothing I say will come as a surprise to you, but I feel obliged to say it nonetheless.

First, there is public speculation that the Bush administration is divided between the lawyers, who want to file an amicus on behalf of the plaintiffs, and the politicos, who either want to support the University of Michigan or not get involved at all. I understand from a Wall Street Journal editorial that Secretary Colin Powell is urging the latter course. There is also much speculation that the recent controversy surrounding Senator Trent Lott may have some direct bearing on the course to be chosen by the president.

I will not presume to give you, of all people, political advice. I leave to others the duty of rendering such counsel. In fact, my appeal to you is not that of a fellow Republican, but that of a fellow American.

There are many who believe-and I am among them-that the one factor which overshadowed all others in the 2000 presidential election was the question of whether our nation would elect a president who would return character and principle to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

As I sat in that muddy field, shivering, with rain drops falling on my scalp, and watched George W. Bush take his Oath of Office, I felt proud to be an American citizen once again. Many of us who had traveled from all across this land to share that moment--total strangers we may have been--smiled at each other with a sense of shared appreciation that we had elected a president who would never subordinate the best interest of the nation to his personal or political whims, as we thought had been the case for the previous eight years. The University of Michigan cases present an opportunity for our president to reaffirm what we thought on that day three years ago.

Throughout our history, there have been many critical moments in which we as a nation have been called upon to answer the following questions: What does America stand for? Was the Declaration of Independence mere rhetoric or did it outline a framework to guide the moral and civic development of our young nation? Is the guarantee of equal treatment to "every person" contained in the Fourteenth Amendment of our Constitution something on which we can rely as we engage in daily transactions with our government? Was it the purpose of the "civil rights" movement to end the morally abhorrent practice of discriminating against black people so that we could discriminate in favor of them? Or, was it the purpose of that tumultuous period in our nation's history to end the practice of discriminating against any American citizen on the basis of their race or skin color or the origin of their ancestors?

There has never been a time when the President of the United States has had the luxury of obtaining a waiver on his responsibility to lead the American people as it confronted these questions.

In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower-a fellow Republican, I would hasten to add-authorized the Justice Department to file a friend-of-the-court brief that clearly, succinctly and powerfully outlined a principle that has guided our nation for nearly half a century. In that brief, the government said:

"Racial discriminations imposed by law, or having the sanction or support of government, inevitably tend to undermine the foundations of a society dedicated to freedom, justice, and equality. The proposition that all men are created equal is not mere rhetoric. It implies a rule of law--an indispensable condition to a civilized society--under which all men stand equal and alike in the rights and opportunities secured to them by their government.

"Under the Constitution, every agency of government, national and local, legislative, executive, and judicial, must treat each of our people as an American, and not as some member of a particular group classified on the basis of race or some other constitutional irrelevancy. The color of a man's skin---like his religious beliefs, or his political attachments, or the country from which he or his ancestors came to the United States---does not diminish or alter his legal status or constitutional rights. 'Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.' [citing Justice John Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson.]"

When the United States Supreme Court ratified the above principle in Brown v. Board of Education, it poured the foundation for us to build a culture of equality in our land. The Congress constructed the walls a decade later, when it enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But, it remained for us--the American people--to complete the structure by placing our faith in the principle of equal treatment and dedicating ourselves to making that principle the centerpiece of our lives. Thus, we have, indeed, built a culture of equality, a culture that grants no tolerance to anyone who would countenance a different kind of America. What else accounts for the rapid demotion of Senator Trent Lott for speaking ill-chosen words?

Now, the question is whether this president will see things as clearly as President Eisenhower and President John F. Kennedy, who said, "Race has no place in American life or law"; or whether he will choose to endorse, either by his silence or expressed support, the concept that "diversity" is more important than the principle of equal treatment for every person.

As a Regent of the University of California for nearly ten years, I have come to know a great deal about the practices of higher education with respect to the matter of race. It is my firm belief that the professed value of "diversity" is fraudulently used because no other rationale is allowed by the Court. It is a fig leaf and nothing more than a legally sanctioned excuse to discriminate. More significantly, however, granting any agency of government the authority to use race, color or national ancestry to "create diversity", fundamentally contradicts that precious principle of equal treatment under the law for every person. I submit to you that the "diversity" rationale and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are incompatible. They cannot coexist. To allow the use of race as "one among many factors" is to renounce all for which our nation stands.

One final observation: As long as our government believes that it can only achieve racial "diversity" by giving special consideration to those who would not otherwise be "represented" because of their race, color or ethnic background, we will suffer what the president rightly calls the "soft bigotry of lower expectations." As long as the diversity rationale is given governmental legitimacy, every black and Hispanic student in college will suffer the presumption of inadequacy that is implicit in that rationale.

I beg of you to view this issue through the lens of principle and our culture of equality and not through the prism of politics.

All Freepers should send emails to the White House and call the White House and urge the President to take a stand and do what is right......

I have done so, in my official capacity as President of Keyes' Educational Foundation.

Here is my letter.

I may start another thread with it, but for now, I'm off with the family for a long delayed viewingof the Two Towers ...

*******

Dear Mr. President,

I have followed, with some distress, accounts in the press that your administration may not oppose, in the U.S. Supreme Court, grossly preferential treatment by the University of Michigan on the basis of race and sex.

As President of the Declaration Foundation, and as a former vice-chair of California's Proposition 209, I beg you to take a stand. Your party, the people of California, and the founding principles of this Republic all call for equal treatment under the law. There is no subtlety, no fine print, no room for political compromise based on electoral calculations here. All human beings are created equal. That is final. All are entitled to equal treatment under law. That is final. And not only final, but, for Americans, foundational.

Please, Mr. President, respect the pledges of your party, of your campaign, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and of the Declaration. Respect the honored dead of Gettysburg and Antietam. Have a care for the memory of Lincoln, the founder of your party. Direct the Solicitor General to act for justice, and against race-consciousness and disunity. Stand up for simple equality, and earn a place in history as the president who finally made good on Justice John Marshall Harlan's golden words, "Our Constitution is color-blind."

Sincerely yours,
Dr. Richard Ferrier
President, Declaration Foundation

*******

Best to all,

Richard F.

BUMP

Will George W. work for
a color-blind America?
Michelle Malkin

I WANT A PRESIDENT who opposes racial discrimination by the government with every fiber of his being.

Yes, it's personal. My future children will be full-blooded Americans of half-Filipino, half-Russian Jewish descent. I want them to grow up, go to school, get jobs, and raise their own children in a country where they will not be penalized for their race or forced to identify their ethnicity in order to achieve their dreams.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin091099.asp

Q Ari, will the administration be filing a brief in the Supreme Court affirmative action case?

MR. FLEISCHER: That is under review. This is something that the Department of Justice and the White House are reviewing as we speak and no decisions have been made.

Q There's only a week left, so presumably they have to be writing this now. Can you give us a little more on where you are in the process?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the deadline is a week from today. And that's a lot of time.

Q Why wouldn't you?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not indicating whether the administration will or won't, or if we do, what it might say.

Q But the signal landmark case on affirmative action in 25 years, and the U.S. government isn't going to take a position?

MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't say we would or we wouldn't. I'm just saying it's a matter that's under review, precisely because it is a landmark case and a case that's important and a case that the President, who is very sensitive to issues involving diversity and opportunity for all, wants to make sure that it's approached in a thorough and careful, deliberative manner. And so there is one week remaining on the court given deadline for when an amicus brief would have to be filed. And so it remains an issue under review.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030109-8.html

Keeping the Republicans Feet to the fire

lets End Affirmative Action Mr President

He's in, well, maybe:

"Bush May Enter Affirmative Action Case"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820656/posts?page=133#133

He's torn:

White House torn over affirmative action case

He's out:

White House set to stay out of affirmative-action case - Washington Times - January 9, 2003

White House Set To Stay Out Of Affirmative Action Case

For once, Bush, would you take a stand?:

Bush must take a stand on affirmative action

Affirmative Action Faces a New Wave of Anger

He's defending affirmative action:

Bush administration to defend affirmative action

Bush to defend affirmative action policy

Bush to defend affirmative action policy

Bush selling out for votes, you're kidding:

Bush selling out on Affirmative Action to get votes

Never-Ending Supreme Court Case Has Bush Fighting for Affirmative Action

Bush Administration Defends Affirmative Action

Bush May Enter Affirmative Action Case...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820656/posts?page=133#133

Keeping the Republicans Feet to the fire

For once, Bush, would you take a stand.......

End Affirmative Action

THANKS..........

:>)

Eleanor Clift says that since Bush has given conservatives Pickering, he won't give in to conservatives on AA

tick tick tick as the day cometh!

Keeping the Republicans Feet to the fire lets End Affirmative Action

affirmative action-- Bush May Enter Affirmative Action Case...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820656/posts

Affirmative action-- Quotas on trial (Thomas Sowell)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820114/posts

affirmative action-- Wishful Thinking Not Enough to Rid Country of Racism (Big Barf Alert)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820648/posts

affirmative action--bush May Enter Affirmative Action Case...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820656/posts

affirmative action--White House set to stay out of affirmative-action case
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819379/posts

affirmative action--White House torn over affirmative action case
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820077/posts

affirmative action--Words of Advice: The speech the president should give on the Michigan cases.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820342/posts

It's affirmative action and that is the issue here!

Supreme Court enters debate over affirmative action on campus

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/4650532.htm

Affirmative Action

Chronology & History

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/race/affirm/homepage.htm

Karl,

I know that there must be much on your plate these days, and one of the tasty morsels must be the question of what to do about the University of Michigan cases now pending before the Supreme Court.

Letter from Ward Connerly to Karl Rove

left is able to smear reasonable arguments as racist

It is now time for white America to realize that they are part of this same battle. The words “racist,” “bigot,” and “hatemonger,” coming from embittered followers of demagogues, mean nothing. The real strength is in those who give these words no mind and continue to stand against racism and for what is right. Enduring these attacks is a part of a blessed life. Christ said that whenever you stand up for right you will go through such attacks. If Christ had to endure, why shouldn’t we? After all, in enduring as Christ did, we come closer to God.

If Americans of all races can lay aside their fear to stand up for truth, we will all be blessed. If they do not lay aside this fear, then destruction will be widespread.

Jesse Lee Peterson
White Fear
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_337.shtml

From all things I have seen on this matter the President has never given an opinion, so the only indictment would be that we have no clue and so holding him to the fire and plending the case is not out of the question in my mind!

I would like to see the Bush administration stand tall and do what is right and not sit out the arguement or side with quotas. But as I said from everything I find he has not given an opinion except to change words around. Anyway here is a old thread from freerepublic back in 1999 that Michelle Malkin based her 1999 story on. Nothing has changed since then except he is now President and must take a stand now one way or another.

......

Topic: George W. Bush
Where does George W. Bush stand on affirmative action?

Campaign For a Colorblind America

The Campaign For a Colorblind America (www.equalrights.com) asked George W. Bush to answer the following questions:

Congress should enact a law that would ban discrimination and preferences on the basis of race, color, sex, ethnicity and national origin in the operation of public employment and public contracting.

Agree_____ Disagree_____ No Opinion_____

Race-based "affirmative action" should be replaced with class- or need-based affirmative action or a system based on merit only.

Agree_____ Disagree_____ No Opinion_____

No recent immigrant of any race should benefit from "affirmative action" or racial preferences because they have not faced a history of discrimination in the United States.

Agree_____ Disagree_____ No Opinion_____

In his answer, to each of these questions, Gov. George W. Bush checked "No Opinion."

Also, Gov. Bush did not take a position on Measure A, better known as the Houston Civil Rights Initiative, which would have outlawed race and gender preferences in contracting in Houston.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36e138b1462f.htm

Good post #42

All Freepers its time for action as only freepers can do.

For the next 3 days send your emails and Fax's and call and let The President know he has our support on this matter. Do the right thing and start the end of affirmative action in America!

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.