RaceBlind.Org

The general topic of this blog is the elimination of racial preferences.A more specific purpose of the blog is to discuss, document and share news about the Super Tuesday for Equality 2008 campaign.

New users should also read the article on Registering and Logging In.

By way of orientation and background, please also read the accompanying article Perfect Storm for Equality.

.
SOME TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:

• Corporate America strongly supports racial quotas and preferences. What can we do to encourage them to embrace equal treatment under the law? Boycotts? Lawsuits?
• Voters in the state of Michigan recently approved the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) by a 58% majority. The MCRI bans consideration of race and gender in public education, public contracting, and public employment. Yet the University of Michigan continues to publish strategies to defeat voter initiatives against racial quotas and preferences. How do we counter these misguided efforts to circumvent the will of the voters?
• Both Republican and Democrat voters have resoundingly voted in favor of the California, the Washington State, and recently the Michigan bans on racial preferences. Yet all of their elected representatives of both major parties strongly opposed those state initiatives. How can we convince our elected representatives that they are NOT representing their constituents interests and should therefore support bans against racial preferences?
• Why are conservatives and Republicans so afraid to promote the just cause of equal treatment under the law? What can we do as voters to encourage them to represent our interests on this issue?

Sincerely,
Tim Fay, Moderator
Adversity.Net, Inc.

Corporate America’s use of quotas and preferences is insidious and it is pervasive. The following links provide a starting point for this discussion.  These represent only a tiny handful of such cases.

Each link will open a new window in your browser:

Kodak - Photo giant’s heavy-handed, oppressive enforcement of its so-called winning and inclusive culture.

Boeing - Billions paid in racial extortion. Fed’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance refused to allow Boeing to take employee evaluations and seniority into account in determining pay scales.

Big Three Automakers - Government pressure to contract with preferred races and ethnicities. Being certified as a woman owned small business was not enough for this small firm. 

Coca Cola - After this case of racial extortion, Linda Chavez brilliantly dubbed the soft drink maker Quota Cola. 

– Tim Fay

Of course, the infamous Louisville and Seattle cases are pending before the Supreme Court right now. For the historical background of this case see Seattle and Jefferson County. (<=This post is almost 1 yr. old.) Also see NEWS UPDATE 05/03/07.

.
Jessica Haak was accepted into Rochester’s school transfer program, but then school administrators discovered she was white. Then the shucking and jiving really began.

The Boston Latin School case is really old, but it is a classic of this genre.

– Tim Fay

Our public service employees suffer greatly at the hand of racial quotas and preferences. This category is concerned with the oppressive racial hiring requirements that are imposed upon police and fire departments and upon municipal employees generally.Here are a few links to provide you with background on this discussion.

New Haven Firefighters: New Haven refuses to promote the mostly white top scoring firefighters on the unbiased, race-neutral promotional exams for Captain and Lieutenant. City is being sued for reverse discrimination. (12-11-06)

Pontiac Firefighters: The City of Pontiac, Michigan has been forced by the U.S. Justice Department to give white firefighters a fair and equal chance for employment within the department.

Philadelphia Fire Dept.: If you are white then this fire department cannot hire you! Quotas at the Philadelphia Fire Department trump ability.

Add your own horror story, news, or personal experience regarding reverse discrimination against Police, Fire and Municipal employees.

HEADLINE: Hearing reset for affirmative action ballot measure

By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News
May 3, 2007

A hearing scheduled last week for a 2008 ballot measure challenging affirmative action in Colorado was rescheduled to give sponsors time to review questions posed by the Legislative Council.

Sponsors of the “Prohibition on Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Colorado Governments” ballot measure said they got only 24 hours notice about the Legislative Council’s questions because of an e-mail problem. The questions were actually sent 48 hours in advance.

Valery Pech Orr, executive director of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, said sponsors wanted their “allies and lawyers” to have a chance to review what the council was asking.

The hearing, originally was slated for April 26, has been rescheduled for May 14.

Legislative Council officials said the hearing is designed to help sponsors look at how the measure interacts with current laws and if there might be any problems with its wording.

Pech Orr said the questions were “standard” and technical in nature, though officials with the Legislative Council said such inquires can be substantive as well. Neither would disclose the exact nature of the questions.

The measure is similar to ones passed recently in Michigan, California and other states. It seeks to restrict government from using race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

Opponents claim it would roll back gains made by minorities disenfranchised by legal discrimination for decades.

Proponents say that once they clear the Legislative Council hearing, they will take the ballot measure to the Secretary of State’s Office.

Assuming it is approved for the November 2008 ballot, sponsors can begin collecting signatures.

They will need about 76,000 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. -30-

Last Known Link to Original Article

Here’s a hint of the opposition strategy for 2008: “We must keep racial quotas so that we can have appropriate levels of diversity.” Note also that in this article the opposition put the AZ CRI into the same category with people who oppose same sex marriage. They also are clinging to a classic faux defense of quotas: “Race is not the only factor we consider.” tjf

[Excerpted from Arizona Capitol Times April 27, 2007.  Emphasis added.]

HEAD: Affirmative action targeted
By Christian Palmer, christian.palmer@azcapitoltimes.com

“A California activist and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced on April 26 they will be initiating a ballot initiative effort to ban race and gender based affirmative action programs and policies in Arizona.

“Democrats already lined up in opposition:

“Several Democratic state representatives in opposition to the yet-to-be-launched initiative banning race and gender preferences for public employment, public education and public contracts attended the press conference at the Capitol.

“(Ward) Connerly traded barbs with Rep. Ben Miranda, D-16, who interrupted the speaker’s responses to media questions to attack Connerly’s use of the phrase “civil rights.” He said race is not the sole factor considered under affirmative action policies.

“He further said the initiative would have harmful effects on public schools when Connerly loudly interjected, “Is there a question some place in here?”  The clash continued as he assailed the notion that affirmative action programs are part of citizens’ civil rights, as evident by the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  “It did not say single out blacks or Hispanics or anyone else,” said Connerly, who earlier in the week launched similar efforts in Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma.

“Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-15, announced she would be forming a coalition to combat the effort, calling its title Arizona Civil Rights Initiative “ridiculous” and contending it would roll back hard-fought civil rights achievements.

“I’m looking forward to another win,” said Sinema, who was instrumental in defeating a 2006 ballot initiative that would have defined marriage as an act between a man and woman and barred state and local governments from granting legal status similar to marriage to unwed couples.

“Non-minorities are not harmed by race and gender based preferences because they already make up the majority of student populations at colleges and universities. Racial quotas are also not used in the state, said Sinema.

“It’s about making sure we have an appropriate level of diversity,” said Sinema, who credited gender preferences with her getting accepted into law school.

“Thomas, it was announced, will serve as the group’s honorary chairman. At the conference he said he was considering whether the initiative would seek to ban separate probation programs used by the Maricopa County Superior Court for Native Americans and Spanish speakers.

Last known link to Arizona Capitol Times story.

Missouri CRI Progress 05-19-07:

The MO CRI Executive Director is Tim Asher.   Mr. Asher was the Admissions Director of North Central Missouri Community College and when he questioned the legality of race exclusive scholarships his contract was not renewed.  The American Civil Rights Initiative and the Center for Equal Opportunity have been assisting Asher in his wrongful termination lawsuit against the college. Tim Asher, better than most, is aware of the pernicious effects of race in higher education. He was thrilled when Missouri was chosen as a Super Tuesday state and is a natural fit for the job of Executive Director.

In Missouri the process of just getting to signature gathering may have a few pitfalls. The MO Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, must review the language, and she is a partisan Democrat and not afraid to show it.   Her reputation for interfering with initiatives she does not agree with precedes her.  Among the Missouri power elite, Ms. Carnahan is very powerful.  [She is the part of a family political dynasty stretching back to her grandfather:  Her father, Mel Carnahan served as Missouri’s State Treasurer, Lt. Governor and Governor. Her mother, Jean Carnahan served as Missouri’s United States Senator. And her grandfather, ASJ Carnahan served as Congressman from south-central Missouri and U.S. Ambassador, appointed by President John F. Kennedy.   She also disingenuously describes herself as a “small business owner” — which involves an 800 acre farm and angus cattle operation.  Small?]

Racial Quotas in Missouri:   Missouri actively promotes the use of racial quotas in state government contracting, for minorities in general and for Hispanics in particular.  See, for example Executive Order 05-43 Hispanic Business Trade and Culture Commission, and Executive Order 05-30 The Office of Supplier and Workforce Diversity (read - minority participation goals).

Kansas City just adopted “required” goals (read quotas) for minority participation in city contracts and St Louis and its participation goals are legendary.  See, for example, the March 7, 2007 story in the St. Louis Business Journal.

Cross-posted at EqualityTalk.com.

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals (6th Circuit, Cincinnati) rejected as “moot” BAMN’s appeal of Judge Arthur Tarnow’s ruling in September 2006 that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2. BAMN’s argument was that alleged fraud in signature collection should disqualify the initiative from reaching the ballot. The Court again gave lip service to the political legend fabricated by BAMN that MCRI leaders organized the greatest criminal conspiracy in world history (180,000 instances of fraud coordinated among thousands of individuals), short of perhaps the alleged “9/11 conspiracy”. Yet there has never been a single trial and no due process afforded to any one accused of fraud (in fact, no individual has been accused of fraud).

The Detroit News reports here, and AP Wire here.

As of Sept. 11, 2007 the Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative is preparing to file ballot language with the OK Secretary of State in preparation for gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the 2008 general election ballot. according to Associated Press (via KJRH-TV):

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A former Republican legislative candidate has filed notice with the Secretary of State’s Office of his intent to circulate an initiative petition that a critic says would eliminate affirmative-action programs.

Oklahoma City attorney Devin Resides, who ran unsuccessfully for a state House of Representatives seat in 2006, said the proposal “will abolish all preferences based on the way a person looks.”
“I don’t think this will impact in any shape or form the reaching out to those Oklahomans that need help,” Resides said.

Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City, chairman of the Oklahoma Legislative Black Caucus, said the measure would end state affirmative-action programs.

“If that is not the reason, then why offer an initiative petition?” Shelton asked.

Under state law, the petitioner has 90 days to gather the 138,970 signatures needed to qualify for a statewide vote.

Resides said he doesn’t want the measure to be labeled an anti-affirmative-action effort.

“It is an anti-preference initiative,” he said.

If approved, the measure would add a new section to the state constitution.

“The new section prohibits discriminating against or granting preferences to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contacting by the state or any of its agencies, institutions, or political subdivisions,” the proposed ballot title says, adding that it would not bar actions necessary for the state to obtain federal funding.

Affirmative-action policies are generally designed to promote access to education and jobs for historically disadvantaged segments of the population. Supporters say they redress past discrimination and level the playing field for minorities and women.

Resides said Jennifer Gratz of the American Civil Rights Institute in California contacted him about the issue. California passed a similar measure.

Gratz did not return a phone call seeking comment.

“Some people say that it is supposed to get Republicans excited to come out and vote in the November election,” Shelton said of the proposal.

“I think that is a bizarre way to get people out to vote. But I think it paints a clear picture on the disappointing direction of the Republican effort.” -30-

Here is the last known LINK to the KJRH-TV report.

It is business as usual among the advocates of the peculiar form of official racial discrimination that we call affirmative action. The Colorado Supreme Court last week used convoluted, politically motivated reasoning — and not legal precedent — to try to prevent the citizens of Colorado from deciding whether that state’s voters will be allowed to decide whether racial quotas, er, affirmative action, should be allowed to continue. Here is a Sept. 19, 2007 article from the Rocky Mountain News on that story:

HEADLINE: Carroll: High court, low politics

STORY TEXT:

Love or loathe the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, it’s straightforward, simple and easy to understand. No hidden agendas or confusing language. Just a stark ban on government discrimination based on race, sex or the other familiar categories.

So why did three state Supreme Court justices try to sabotage the amendment last week, claiming it violated the rule barring a ballot measure from having more than one subject?

Crass politics is one possible explanation. Given the record of several justices in recent years, crass politics may even be the only plausible explanation.

One summer ago, you may remember, the court invoked the same all-purpose excuse to kill an initiative that would have barred governmental benefits for illegal immigrants. The proposed ballot measure may have been a blunt instrument deserving defeat at the polls — in my view, at least — but it clearly stuck to a single subject.

The Civil Rights Initiative, which in all likelihood will be on next year’s ballot, is even more tightly focused than the immigration measure.

The language approved by the state title board says “the state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

It then permits exceptions related to federal law and court decrees, while defining “state” to include higher education and local government.

Yet despite its clarity, the measure survived a legal challenge only because the court knotted in a tie. Three justices (Nancy Rice, Nathan Coats and Alison Eid) agreed it was a single subject, while three others (Mary Mullarkey, Greg Hobbs and Alex Martinez) said it wasn’t. Justice Michael Bender did not participate.

Justices don’t have to explain themselves when the court upholds a title board decision, but it’s no mystery what Chief Justice Mullarkey and her two colleagues were probably thinking given the legal briefs in the case.

The amendment’s opponents claim its language implies that preferential treatment “is simply a subcategory of ‘discrimination,’ ” and they dispute whether that’s the case.

Preferential treatment “can certainly involve forms of ‘discrimination,’ ” the litigants concede, but it also “involves a good bit more than that.” In fact, they say, some forms of preferential treatment “disadvantage no one.”

The short answer to this argument is that the measure’s sponsors obviously disagree. They believe “preferential treatment” is a subcategory of discrimination. That’s why they want it on the ballot — to end practices they consider wrong.

Nor are the measure’s sponsors unusual in mentioning discrimination and preferential treatment in the same breath. As the title board’s brief points out, “The United States Supreme Court has long acknowledged the close relationship between laws or actions that discriminate against an individual or a group based upon race, gender, nationality or ethnicity, and those that grant preferential treatment toward an individual or group.”

Every statute or amendment contains unanswered questions regarding its application, and the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative is no exception. But given the amendment’s overall clarity and narrow focus, it’s nothing less than scandalous that three justices of the state’s highest court were prepared to prevent voters from ever ruling on it.

If you want to understand their high-handed attitude, you could do worse than consult Squealer, the propagandist in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

“Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure,” Squealer explains at one point. “On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” -30-
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountain
News.com.

Here is the last known LINK to the original Rocky Mountain News story.