The Washington Post reports that Ward Connerly has succeeded in placing an initiative against state action involving racial preferences on the ballot in Colorado, and is attempting to gather the signatures needed for such an initiative in Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. Given his success in the very blue states of California, Washington, and Michigan, Connerly’s prospects would seem to be good in all five of the states he’s focusing on this year.

The Post’s description of what’s at stake here is misleading at best. First, the Post claims that Connerly seeks to “kill affirmative action in the public sphere.” Actually, Connerly’s initiatives seek to ban racial preferences, which are only the most extreme form of affirmative action.

Next, the Post informs us that “affirmative action is meant to address current and historical inequities.” That may be partially true at some level, but the official justification for the most common racial preferences under attack is not “inequity” but diversity. Indeed, the Post quotes Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, as stating that “diversity is good for business, good for the classroom and ultimately good for the country” (emphasis added). Henderson says nothing about inequity.

Henderson and other proponents of preferences push the diversity justification, rather than arguing from “inequity,” for many reasons including the following: First, diversity has been the Supreme Court’s favored rationale. Second, there isn’t anything inequitable about a college rejecting, say, an upper middle class African-American student whose credentials don’t measure up; yet liberal bureaucrats may wish to discriminate in favor of that student in order to achieve a particular racial balance. Third, the state institution in question may never have engaged in discrimination. Fourth, it may well be the case that neither the white applicant who loses out due to the racial preference nor his or her ancestors has ever benefited from past discrimination against minorities. Fifth, as a matter of marketing, the diversity rationale makes it sound like whites are the real beneficiaries of the racial preferences – those who are admitted have the privilege of attending a more diverse college.

The Post does offer one nice tidbit of information, though. It reports that Connerly contributed $500 to Barack Obama’s campaign to honor him “for trying to take race out of the body politic.” In light of recent developments, perhaps Connerly should ask for a refund.

Posted by Paul at 10:34 PM  |    |