Ward Connerly's Response To His Critics

The Declaration Foundation ^ | 01/28/03 | Ward Connerly

[goldstategop]

CONNERLY'S LETTER

January 28, 2003

John J. Moores, Chairman University of California Board of Regents 1111 Franklin St., 12th Floor Oakland, CA 94607

Dear John,

On December 13, 2003, I appeared on "CNN with Wolf Blitzer," as a private citizen (not as a UC Regent), to express my belief that United States Senator Trent Lott should withdraw from consideration to be Senate Majority Leader in view of his comments--made a week earlier--that appeared to praise the segregationist past of Senator Strom Thurmond.

During the interview, Mr. Blitzer asked if I thought Senator Lott was a "racist." I said that I didn't think so, and then I expanded upon my reply. A copy of the transcript of the interview is attached so that you might see the full context of my remarks. The relevant excerpt, however, is as follows:

"BLITZER: Well, the bottom line, in other words, what you're saying is that you do believe that was a racist statement that he made last week.

"CONNERLY: Supporting segregation need not be racist. One can believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races, so it doesn't necessarily make it racist, but I think it's certainly a poor direction for this nation to have pursued, namely segregation.

"I won't say that he's racist. I don't think he is. I think one could believe in equality of the races as he has talked about and believe that the races should remain separate and not have a notion that Black people are inferior, for example. But I just cannot reconcile those words that he said. I don't know what he could have meant by all of these problems."

There were three primary reasons why I commented as I did. First, calling someone a "racist" is one of the most serious social indictments we can make of any individual. It is a label that, once applied, hangs around that person's neck for a lifetime. By definition, a racist is one who hates others because of their "race," who is prejudiced, or who engages in racial discrimination or the persecution of others because of their "race." I reserve that term for those who fit the definition based on my personal knowledge of their beliefs or conduct or my research into their background. I am not one who casually invokes that term.

Race is one of our nation's most nagging and contentious issues. From my experience, racism often does not result from hate and prejudice, but from fear or ignorance. Calling an individual a "racist" and then bludgeoning that individual into submission does not erase their fears and ignorance; it only drives them underground. Thus, I am just naturally cautious about the use of that term. I believe the transcript reveals my caution.

Second, although most of us think of the subjugation of black people whenever we hear the term "segregation," in reality segregation can apply to other circumstances as well. There can be self-imposed segregation resulting from students who "cluster" on campus; and segregation can be the unintended consequence of certain actions, such as that which the proponents of race preferences contend will be the result of ending race-based admissions.

For my part, I abhor segregation in all forms. And, if the issue is racial segregation as practiced following slavery--often imposed, sanctioned, and enforced by government decree--then that form of segregation is obviously indefensible. It is unconstitutional, but more significantly, it is immoral. But I persist in saying that it is possible for an individual to believe in "keeping with his own kind," as I once heard an individual say, and not hate those of another "kind" or believe them to be inferior or to persecute them in any way. That is what we call "freedom of association." Those who exercise that right are not necessarily racists, although such is more likely to be the case than not.

I am belaboring this point so that you can have a better understanding of what I meant when I replied to Blitzer as I did. But let me make one thing clear: Under NO circumstances do I diminish or condone or "defend" in any manner the era of racial segregation that caused black people to be treated like animals. When it is established or sanctioned by the government, I not only abhor segregation, I devoutly embrace the edict of Brown v. Education.

Separate was not equal and was borne of a desire to keep people like me "in their place." Such segregation was despicable and will forever blight our nation's history. When it is a matter of personal choice--although it is not the way I live my life or would counsel others who would seek my opinion--I hesitate to pass judgment on those who prefer to segregate themselves, as a matter of their freedom to associate with whomever they please, as long as their conduct does not harm or adversely affect others.

Now, let me address the letter that, according to press accounts, thirty-six Democrat legislators have sent to our Board calling for me to be "reprimanded" or "rebuked" for my views. The fact that all signatories of this letter are Democrats and opponents of Proposition 209 and the Racial Privacy Initiative is, undoubtedly, a significant factor in this controversy.

The letter states: "Connerly's comments betray a stunning ignorance of the history of segregation and racism."

Having been born in Leesville, Louisiana, in 1939, I wish I did have a "stunning ignorance" of societal segregation that was enforced by my government. Unfortunately, my experiences with such segregation have not come from history books or other sources of reading material; it has been of a cruel, up-close, and personal variety. As a child growing up in Louisiana, I personally witnessed signs that read, "WE DO NOT SERVE COLOREDS." Therefore, I don't need members of the Latino Caucus, other legislators, or students two generations removed from the REALITY of a truly racist system to chastise me, or counsel me on racial etiquette.

From birth, the "c" on my birth certificate, for "colored," defined the structure and limitations of the life that I was able to live as a child in the Deep South. There is nothing more humiliating, more debilitating, than to watch your 30-year-old uncle being called a "boy" and dressed down in front of his wife and nephew by a 16-year old white boy exercising the privilege of his skin color. So, believe me when I tell you that I can live without the abstract lessons of those who have not lived the life that I have.

The letter further states: "Segregation has always been a manifestation of racism and the two cannot be divided. One cannot believe in segregation and equality. Segregation by its very definition is discriminatory."

With such a view, I wonder how the signatories to the letter reconcile the California Latino Caucus, an entity whose membership is limited to "Latinos?" How about the Congressional Black Caucus, the Black and Chicano Student Unions on our campuses, Black Freshman Orientation at UC Davis (and other campuses), Chicano and African American Graduation Ceremonies at UC, so-called "theme houses" where students self-segregate based on race and ethnicity, race-based fraternities and sororities, Black Alumni Associations, Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, and many others too numerous to mention. It is indisputable that these organizations are "segregated" by race and ethnicity. In my generosity of spirit to not equate all "segregation" or "separation of the races" with "racism," as a matter of definition, perhaps I have been overlooking an epidemic of flat-out racism in our midst. Perhaps, I have been in error in believing that since I do not see visible signs of malice, hate, or prejudice in the conduct of these organizations and their members, they are not racists. If California's fiscal crisis is not enough to occupy the attention of responsible legislators, perhaps they might want to confront all of this "racism" that I have mentioned, based on their definition of segregation, instead of pursuing a foolish, Nazi-like expedition to condemn me for my refusal to conform to their way of thinking. If they say these are not segregated entities of the sort that they find objectionable, I wonder if they would reach a similar conclusion if an organization devoted to the interests of "white people" were to seek recognition on one of our campuses?

Finally, let me address the issue of my initial reaction to this controversy when I was informed of it by a reporter for the Oakland Tribune. She said several students "demand" that I apologize for my comments "defending segregation." "What do you want to tell them?" I said, "Tell them to go to hell." That was a heart-felt outburst of anger and outrage, and I have no regrets for expressing it.

I have malice for no one, and I have always been respectful of the views of others. My patience in the endurance of insults at Regents meetings and other venues is a trait that has not gone without notice of those who monitor our proceedings. But I will not allow myself to be intimidated by students or legislators into conforming to what they want me to say or apologizing when my words do not fit into the mold that they have created. I especially will not casually brush aside any suggestion that I condone the oppressive system of inhumanity under which not only some of my ancestors lived, but I did as well.

What I found particularly appalling was the utter hypocrisy of their manufactured concern about my comments. While they were falsely accusing me of "defending segregation," Mo Kashmiri and Jessica Quindel--who opposed displaying the American Flag and singing "God Bless America" at a "9/11" memorial--were running to a member of the California Latino Caucus to do their dirty work for them. All the while, in the Chicano "theme-house" (Casa de Joaquin Murietta), an effigy of me was hanging from a noose. These were the same individuals who were involved in burning me in effigy on campus a few years ago. If there is a more despicable symbol of racial segregation--Deep South in the 1950s-style--than a black man hanging from a noose, I don't know what it is. Yes, I found that sufficiently beyond the bounds of civil discourse to tell them to "go to hell" with emphasis.

This Trifecta of Hypocrisy-Latino Caucus member leading the attack (1) and me hanging in effigy in a noose (2) in a Chicano "theme house" (3)-is not something that any responsible legislator should take lightly. How can it be that individuals who pride themselves on being liberal or "progressive" can be so intolerant of diverse views--so demanding that everyone fall into their conformist pattern of thinking--becomes that refusal to apologize for having a difference in perspective be grounds for a "reprimand?"

But then again, when your objective is to try to build a head-of-steam to oppose an initiative such as the Racial Privacy Initiative, common rules of decency, civility, and freedom of expression can be suspended, I suppose.

Sincerely,

Ward Connerly

[goldstategop]

This is Ward Connerly's letter in the aftermath of the uproar from the Campus Left, the UC Regents and Democrats in the California State Legislature. As he makes clear in his response to his critics, its easy to equate segregation with purblind and unadulterated racism, especially the legal structure as established in the Jim Crow South. No one in their right minds would defend such a degrading and un-American system of treating some people as less than the human today because of the color of their skin. Connerly's point rather is state-imposed segregation is certainly wrong per se but not all segregation is necessarily inappropriate. Just think for instance of the voluntarily self-segregated private associations to which many of Connerly's critics belong to. Are they ready to give up their membership in them? Its ironic that Connerly's critics so readily condemn him for pointing out their own habits are less than sterling in the matter of promoting racial integration. That must have struck a quite a nerve for the critics to jump in such fury on him as they did.

[Carry_Okie]

Brilliantly written. I was cheering as I read it.

This is how to handle liberal fascists: whether racists, envirals, educrats, or homo-lesbo-pedo-trans-sexuals. Calmly stuff their evil lies right back down their throats without mercy. They won't hate you any less, but they will respect the power of your integrity and those who watch in fear will cheer and take heart.

[mhking]

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[Carry_Okie]

Read and cheer.

[Mudboy Slim]

Ward Connerly is an American Hero...MUD

[chance33_98]

Thanks for the ping Carry_okie!

[forester]

With such a view, I wonder how the signatories to the letter reconcile the California Latino Caucus, an entity whose membership is limited to "Latinos?" How about the Congressional Black Caucus, the Black and Chicano Student Unions on our campuses, Black Freshman Orientation at UC Davis (and other campuses), Chicano and African American Graduation Ceremonies at UC, so-called "theme houses" where students self-segregate based on race and ethnicity, race-based fraternities and sororities, Black Alumni Associations, Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, and many others too numerous to mention. It is indisputable that these organizations are "segregated" by race and ethnicity.

My wife and I always wondered why this point has never been publicly made. My niece is the product of an inter-racial marriage, so we have a little more than a passing interest in this issue. Attitude (content of character as MLK would say) is what we gauge people on at our house. Thanks for the ping.

[Boot Hill]

There will be no mercy shown for a black man that dares to defy leftist ideology. Ward Connerly is a case on point. WC displays a character rare to find in this day and age.

--Boot Hill

[VeniVidiVici]

Superb! Ward Connerly is another example of a black man the left wants to keep down because he is a danger to their cause. He speaks the truth; and the truth shall set you free!!

Very powerful. I shall email to all my liberal relatives.

[FreeReign]

Finally, let me address the issue of my initial reaction to this controversy when I was informed of it by a reporter for the Oakland Tribune. She said several students "demand" that I apologize for my comments "defending segregation." "What do you want to tell them?" I said, "Tell them to go to hell."

Government segregation, government race based quotas -- two similar ideas that should go to hell.

[farmfriend]

If you did a mass ping it must be worth the read.

[Carry_Okie]

People have asked me if I am a racist because I am an obvious conservative. If I think them thoughtful I tell them, yes. They seldom ask what I mean.

I spent my entire young adult life as a white kid on the streets of Oakland. In a place like that, you either learn to be aware of who is around you, what they might do, what they could do, and don't have an escape planned, you will get hurt. I used to listen to the conversations among black jocks in the locker room at Laney College (the local JC). Their attitude was apalling, especially about those white girls with whom they were having sex. (It's a good thing I suspected some were lying or I might have be responsible for failing to have reported a few crimes.) That experience still induces me to react warily to seeing a mixed couple (black male/white female only). That doesn't mean I didn't have black friends, it just means that I was cautious (and still am).

To this day, if I meet a black man in a strange place, I cannot react to that person as if they were white; they have to show me, by their behavior, that they mean me no harm. One could call it conditioning, but I consider it to be racism. Interestingly, the same is not true of those blacks I meet who are clearly African (such as Ethiopians and Somalis of whom I have met many) or black women (unless they clearly have an attitude). The same is true of Latinos to a lesser degree, but not of Asians (although there are those of the latter who by their appearance and actions induce similar caution).

As far as I am concerned, this makes me a racist. I simply cannot treat two people of differing skin color as if they were the same until I have some indication to suggest that I won't get burned. It is a legacy of my youth, and though it makes me sad, I don't apologize for it.

[SierraWasp]

"They won't hate you any less"

You are so right! I'll never forget when I first took office, he came to lobby me for something to do with the County and his business. I knew he was close to the Governor and half expected him to maybe be defensive, or arrogant.

Wow! Was I ever wrong to think that! What a truly "big" human being... and just downright pleasant to converse with! This reminds me of one of Lincoln's "10 Cannots." Something about little men trying to bring down big men to make themselves feel bigger.

These crummy critics of his are truly mental migets!!!

[editor-surveyor]

"This is how to handle liberal fascists..."

But will they understand it? :o)

[lewislynn]

These crummy critics of his are truly mental migets!!!

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure George and Jeb could be considered critics of him.

[farmfriend]

I believe you have made similar points along the way.

[Carry_Okie]

My professor of government was an Oxford educated, conservative scholar, who read ancient Greek, translated Montesquieu, and was a poor black kid from Florida. He is now Dean of the Madison School of Government at Michigan State. They are few, but they are an inspiration for any black man with the intelligence and guts to drive to be the best, as well as the patient faith it takes not to hear those who would steal that dream.

[Carry_Okie]

My wife and I always wondered why this point has never been publicly made.

I assume that's a rhetorical consternation.

[Carry_Okie]

Well, they might understand "Go to hell," even if they don't really get it about the "hell" part.

At least, I think so.

[SierraWasp]

What, other than Jeb not wanting to deal with a Prop 209 type issue during his campaign, would lead you to believe they don't really agree with him when it's more convenient?

The man makes waves and that makes for awkward situations, not what the brothers actually think of him as a person. Ambition can blind people ya know. Even Reagan told that black lady who was gripin at him over some relatively minor personal issue that he couldn't do anything about it if he didn't get elected, right?

You really get yourself wrapped around every little inconsistency you spot in any Repellican, don't you? Why do you hold them to such higher standards than any Demonicrat? Is it because no Liberaltarian has ever gotten themselves in a prominent enough elected position to ever have to face such awkward moral dilemas?

They do exist in real life, you know and they really create embarrassing lose/lose situations for basically good people. Even in the military, where everything is supposed to be cut and dried, by the book so to speak, these situations pop up if you ever get promoted to one of the higher levels of command.

There's nothing wrong with being judgemental and condemning inconsistency, I do it too. But why do you consistently aim your contempt at members of my former party, ONLY? Do you only expect perfection of Repellicans? If so, WHY?

The only thing I can think of, is that you are bitterly obsessing over something personal in the past that some thoughtless Repellican did, or didn't do that offended you deeply and you cannot get over it... EVER!!!

Get well soon.