Ward Connerly is a member of the University of California Board of Regents
and focused the attention of the nation on the University's race-based
system of preferences in its admissions policy. On July 20, 1995, following
Mr. Connerly's lead, a majority of the Regents voted to end the
University's use of race as a means for admissions. He has served on the Board of
Regents since 1993.
Mr. Connerly formally announced the creation of a new, national civil
rights organization, the American Civil Rights Institute on January 15th, 1997. He
served as chairman of the California Civil Rights Initiative campaign
(Proposition 209, which bans both discrimination and preferential treatment
to various minorities on the basis of race, creed, sex, or place of origin)
and has gained national respect as an outspoken advocate of equal
opportunity for everyone, regardless of race or sex. Connerly's views on
preferences, set-asides and quotas have been well documented by the
international, national and California press.
Ward Connerly currently serves as chair of the ACRI and is on the board of
the California Chamber of Commerce.
On 04-24-99 the IV Editor/Publisher spoke with Mr. Connerly. Here is that
interview:
WARD CONNERLY (WC): You're quite welcome.
IV: Affirmative action began in 1965 with the Executive Order of President
Lyndon B. Johnson. He stated that the United States needed to move beyond
the passive non-discrimination laws that had already been enacted. Johnson
also stated that companies needed to go further to guarantee that
minorities and women were recruited in ways that improved their opportunities to be
hired and move up in their jobs. Was President Johnson correct?
WC: I think President Johnson was correct in saying that the nation needed
to address the fact that black people and women -- although I think it's a
mistake to lump them all together, because women were out of the workplace
for different reasons than black people -- were not being allowed to fully
participate in all phases of American public life. President Johnson was
correct that the country had to do more than simply say,
"Thou shalt not discriminate." I don't know, but I don't think that
President Johnson ever intended, and I know that Hubert Humphrey and others
did not intend for affirmative action programs to evolve into a set of
policies and practices that treated people differently on the basis of
race. I think it's still appropriate for us to apply affirmative action in the
sense that we're going to monitor, that we're going to aggressively promote
job availabilities, advertise widely in every kind of newspaper or source
of information that we can, and that we're going to aggressively ferret out
discrimination. But I don't think that affirmative action ought to be a
system of what we call "preferences". That term seems to be pejorative to
some people, but the reality is that affirmative action is a euphemism for a
lot of practices, some of which are good, some of which are very, very
insidious.
IV: That's a good lead-in to my next question. Based on your activities
spearheading ballot measures that overturned affirmative action in both
Washington state and California (Proposition 209), Mr. Connerly, you seem
to be of the opinion that somewhere along the way, affirmative action deviated
from its original purpose. Is that true and, if so, what happened and when?
WC: You know, Mr. Byrd, I think that it happened really in about the
mid-70s. We as a society got impatient with the rate of progress in getting
black people into our universities and into the mainstream. Our
universities began to experiment with affirmative action in ways that were
constitutionally impermissible. That kind of came to a head in 1978, when
Allan Bakke, a white engineering student, prevailed in a lawsuit against
the University of California's quota system. At the time, sixteen seats out of a hundred were
reserved for "underrepresented minorities" at the University of California-Davis School
of Medicine. In the Bakke decision, the Supreme Court ruled that quotas are
illegal; they're unconstitutional, because they operate on the premise that
by bringing in an "underrepresented minority" an institution is bringing in
someone that meets a certain profile, and people should not be stereotyped. One
should not presume that a black person or a Latino brings any set of values
or aspirations to the arena. The court did rule, however, that race could
be used as "one of many factors" in the interest of achieving educational
diversity. Although the Supreme Court was really using diversity in a
broader context, universities said, "Ah-hah!" and they began to use race as
the dominant factor. Instead of using race as an itty-bitty "plus" factor
to distinguish between students of equal merit, universities drove a
Mack truck through that opening and began to establish different standards
for people on the basis of race. And thinking that they had somehow leveled the
playing field, they totally ignored the crappy secondary school system that
a lot of black and Latino kids were attending, because universities
believed that the problem of secondary education had been solved by the
university affirmative action programs. So, I would say that it all began
around the mid-70s, and then it accelerated like topsy with the Bakke decision.
And that Bakke decision has been used not only by higher education but by other
government agencies as well to proclaim their commitment to diversity.
IV: I recently read where you've
begun a campaign in Florida similar to the
ones in California and Washington state. How is that progressing, and how
do you respond to Florida Governor Jeb Bush, among others, calling you "divisive?"
WC: Well, it's progressing rather well, and my response to Governor Bush,
who is -- I think -- trying to do the right thing, is that public policy by
definition is divisive. I can't think of any issue, whether it's tort
reform or school choice or abortion or anything that causes people to make a
decision, that isn't by definition dividing people. I would suggest to the
governor that it's not that this issue is going to divide people; it's how
we handle that debate that is important. Every day my staff gives me a
package of clippings that addresses issues of race around the country. And
if you don't believe that race is already a divisive subject in every
region of this nation, you're living on a different planet than I
am. What I'm suggesting is, let's solve this problem. Let's discuss it, and
let's get it out on the table and resolve it, and it can't be resolved by
white people alone. Black people have to be prepared to come to the
negotiating table and say, "We're willing to give up some things, one of
which is affirmative action as a form of preferences. Not all affirmative action,
though. Make it on the basis of class; make it on the basis of income, but
not on the basis of race. We'll give it up. But what we want in return is
for the American people to stop thinking that black people are somehow less
than competent when it comes to education. Stop thinking that our skin color somehow makes us
unworthy and somehow different, and that one has to pass judgment about us
on the basis of our skin color."
IV: Affirmative action stigmatizes "blacks"?
WC: Exactly, exactly, and when I go to college campuses, I hear a lot of
students say, "Well, I'd rather be here with the stigma than to not be here
at all." That's a false choice, but the reality is that the stigma exists.
It exists, and they know it exists. One black law student who had just beaten
the hell out of me in public, came up to me after my lecture and said,
"You know, you're right. Every day that I walk into class I have this
feeling that people are wondering whether I'm there because I got in through
affirmative action." She said, "So, I agree with you, but it seems to me
that we need to do this more gradually. You're pushing it too fast." But
she really agreed with me on the merits of my argument. You know, I can see
this in their eyes almost, the self-doubt and the fact that they realize
that other people are assuming that they were admitted solely because of
affirmative action, when in actuality most of them have not benefitted from
any preference.
IV: Your detractors present you as a puppet of conservative or even racist
"whites." As a University of California System Regent, however, you voted
in favor of providing domestic partner benefits to gay and lesbian UC
employees. Your support for gay rights is almost never mentioned in the
publicity about you. Could it be because knowledge of your position on
this issue would contradict the "puppet" image your opponents seek to paint?
WC: Exactly. This is almost like a war out there, and you don't concede
anything on the battle field to your opponent. The notion that I am either
a right-wing zealot myself, which some people try to depict me as, or that
I'm a pawn of right-wingers is the centerpiece of their argument, because you
can't argue their position on the merits. You can't argue that black people and
recent immigrants, who may be Latinos or Hispanics, should somehow get preferences
in this nation. You can't argue that forcefully. So, as a result, they have
to resort to attacking me personally, but anybody who knows me knows that
I'm no pawn of anybody. I don't get paid as a Regent. So, if I'm doing this
as a puppet for somebody, I'm one of the dumbest puppets in the world. At
least I should get paid for it, you know.
IV: Your most vehement critics come from within the "black" political
intelligentsia. They suggest that you and your organization are fronting
for a right-wing agenda designed to rollback civil rights advances of
minorities. How do you respond to that charge and to the accompanying
name-calling -- as when they deride you as an Uncle Tom Negro who formerly
was a beneficiary of affirmative action programs?
WC: Well, there are a lot of questions imbedded in that one question, but
let me try to address most of them. First of all, the concept of civil
rights has, I think, been misunderstood in our nation. You mention the
words civil rights, and you automatically think of black people; you think of the
1960s. But the civil rights movement, in my opinion, was a point at which the nation
said we are not going to use traits like color, and I think, by implication,
other traits as well -- sexual orientation, gender -- to discriminate against
people. We're not going to use these traits in Americans to deny people opportunities.
We're not gonna do that. That's how I interpret civil rights. They are unalienable rights that attach to every human being in this nation. You can't sever them from the person. They're born with those
rights, and the presumption that they are equal. Then the nation operates
on that presumption as a nation that believes in God. We say our Creator gave
us those rights. We're endowed with them. We then as a government, I think,
are obliged to honor those rights and to treat everybody equally and to
give them equal protection under the law. Whatever you do outside the law,
that's your business to some extent, but the government is obliged to treat
everybody equally. That's what civil rights, I thought, really meant.
They are not just for black people, and I say as a black man that
black people have to come to terms with that.
Now, to the question that I somehow benefited. I went to a community
college, a two-year institution when I graduated from school, despite the
fact that I was on the honor roll (the dean's list). I had a 3.9 or
something like that, but I couldn't afford to go anyplace else. My mother had died. I was living with
an aunt and an uncle and a grandmother alternately. After graduating from
community college, I then went to a state college. I was student-body president
there. After graduation, I went to work for the government in a civil
service position. I was hired as a result of a civil service examination in which
I came out on top. I then went into business in 1973, and you will not find
me registered anyplace as a minority contractor. But somebody has made such a charge on
the Internet, and once you get it on the Internet, you can't get it
off. My detractors use that, but it's a red herring. It's a false issue.
Moreover, ask the question: if this man has a private business, and he's
somehow benefiting from preferences, why does he want to take them away?
Why does he want to shoot himself in the foot by taking away something from which he
benefits? The reality is that I do not try to characterize myself as a
minority contractor. I do not disparage those who do, but for me, I
think it's a bad business decision. If I register as a minority contractor,
there are certain people who will deal with me on that basis while there's
a shotgun pointed at them, however, once the shotgun is taken away, they will
have no obligation to do business with me. So, I don't want to be regarded, and
I've never wanted to be regarded as a minority contractor. I'm a business man.
My race, whatever that is, is secondary to my being in business and trying
to turn out a good product for my clients. Again, the whole argument of
whether I've benefited is irrelevant. Let's assume that I have. Let's assume that I
came to the conclusion that, "Gee, this is bad; this is bad for me." I have
a right to say that, and one should not somehow try to characterize it as
hypocrisy. But in reality, I don't benefit from these programs, and I
never have.
IV: What exactly is your business?
WC: I have a management consulting business that manages trade
associations. We deal with a lot of non-profit, non-governmental organizations that are
involved, to some extent or another, in public policy. We manage their
assets. We plan their conferences. We are their staff. We represent them at
their board meetings. The trade association business is big business in any
state capital, and it certainly is in the state of California and in
Sacramento. That's what our business is.
IV: Let me preference this next question by stating that I'm of mixed-race
myself, if you didn't already know that.
WC: I didn't know that.
IV: In a New York Times article from July 27, 1997 you stated that you are
one-quarter "black," three-eighths Irish, one-quarter French and one-eighth
Choctaw. Aren't you therefore, Mr. Connerly, a "black" or Negro only after
an extremely liberal -- no pun intended -- application of the one-drop
rule? Aren't you, in effect, of mixed-race or multiracial?
WC: Absolutely, and that's part of the reason why I'm fighting this stupid,
I mean absolutely stupid race regime and this race mentality that we have
in America. There are very few pure African-Americans, very few. On a
recent trip to Louisiana where I gave a lecture at Tulane, I saw black
people who were all shades of the rainbow. Black is a generic term; I'll
accept that. It's a generic term just like white is.
IV: Is it easier for you to say that as opposed to delineating all of your
background?
WC: Yes. We're lazy communicators; all of us are. So, if we need some
shorthand to kind of describe somebody, even though they may
be cream-colored or pink or whatever, it is acceptable I suppose to call
them white. If you want to call fair-skinned people who are, for all intents
and purposes white, if you want to call them black because they they somehow
self-identify as black, go ahead. I don't care, but African-American is a term that I don't like.
In fact, I hate that term, because it presumes my ethnic background or my
national origin, and when you say that I'm African-American, especially when my African ancestry
is less than all the rest of me, you're embracing that one-drop rule
mentality. So, I fight the one-drop rule, because I am of mixed origin. My
wife is white, and my grandkids are all of me, all of my wife. Their mother is
half-Vietnamese. For us, these silly little boxes on these application
forms have got to go. Implicit in all that I do and say is my personal agenda of getting rid
of those friggin' boxes and getting the nation beyond the point at which
you demand that I identify myself as a black man or an African-American. I
won't argue the point right now, because I don't have enough time in my lifetime
to to do so. But eye is constantly on the ball of getting rid of that
mindset in America.
IV: If at the time you were born there had been a legally recognized
mixed-race identity in America, is it conceivable that such a personal
option for yourself could have effected your present efforts to eliminate
considerations of race in school admissions, etc.?
WC: Wow. I'm not sure I can make the connection there. It wasn't the fact
that I had no choice about my background that drove me to attack the system
that we have now. It wasn't that alone. It was my view that, in this
nation, we should never distinguish between the American people on the
basis of traits like skin color and where your ancestors came from. That is
morally wrong, and it is unconstitutional. As a fiduciary of the University
of California, I was driven more from protecting the university from a
lawsuit that was certainly in waiting. The general counsel had informed me,
when I brought these things to his attention that many of our campuses were
engaging in practices that might be considered unconstitutional." He sent a letter to some of the campuses saying, "disband these practices that give underrepresented minorities an automatic
300 bonus points if they check the box." So, I don't think that if I had
the option, or if my parents had the option, to put down multiracial, that it
would have affected how I voted on this. I do think, however, it certainly
would have affected the course of American history, and I think it would
affect the whole debate about race right now, if people had that option. If
more black people, in quotes "black" people, stopped for just one moment
and recognized the fact that they are part quote "white"...probably 60-70% are
"white"...., then their attitudes about race would be affected. If more
people did that, it would then be pretty hard to demonize
those who share a background common to yours. But when you
consider yourself a pure black, and you're a pure white, and you're a pure
Latino or whatever it is, then it's pretty easy, because it's them against
us. That's what generates the name-calling. I've sold-out.?! Well, sell-out
means I've gone to the other side. Well, what's the other side?
IV: The majority side in your case.
WC: That's right. I think that this black-white mentality is one that black
people more than anybody else are going to have to give up. One, it does
not comport with reality.
IV: Let's shift gears away from affirmative action to what has become known
as the multiracial movement. Your organization denounced the federal
government's rejection of a multiracial category on the U.S. Census and
other federal forms. Jennifer Nelson, executive director of ACRI said:
"Americans are tired of being divided and categorized along racial and
ethnic lines. A multiracial box would unify Americans and help heal racial
tensions. We urge President Clinton to reject this task force's
recommendations and support a multiracial box on the U.S. Census." That did
not happen, and there will be no mixed-race or multiracial box next year.
My position all along has been that the government should either include
some form of a multiracial identifier or scrap these stupid categories once
and for all. Let's talk about compelling the United States government to
eliminate racial and ethnic categories from all official forms. Could a
legal case be made for the census -- with its emphasis on separate and
mutually exclusive categories -- as a bastion of segregation, as an immoral
classification system which defines "racial" mixture as illegitimate and
that race-counting in itself breeds race-based resentment?
WC: Absolutely. I had a tough time signing off on the staff's
recommendation on that question of the census. Part of the rationale in the recommendation
was that if we have the multiple choice in effect, if we have a mixed-race
category, so many people will check the mixed-race that it will render as
obsolete all of the other separate categories that we have. I thought,
well, I sort of agree with that, but on the other hand, the way government
operates, and the way it moves like a freight train, it may take another
five generations before we get around to really debating the stupidity of
the classification system. So, we sort of decided that the policy decision
that we would establish, the ground that we would stake out was to attack
the whole classification system period. Go right to the heart of it, rather
than trying to do this incrementally. I'm not sure we made the right
decision. I'm still troubled by this. I don't know which is the right way
to go. I think it reduces itself, to some extent, to tactics. I don't think that we
can sell the idea that racial classifications are an odious system in
America and end them cold turkey. There are too many vested interests in
keeping the status quo, and I see those interests all the time in those who
attack me. Emerge magazine, when it attacks me, is not coming after me on
the basis of some moral principle. Hell, they sell magazines based on people identifying with their blackness.
Most of these people who are attacking me have a vested interest. In
Florida, some of the black politicians who attack me never talk about education;
they talk about contracting. Why do they talk about contracting? Because they're in
people's pockets. It's all on the public record. I'm not casting stones at
anybody without having evidence. It's on the public record. For example,
there is a legislator who invested $250 in an airport concession
that was set aside for a minority contractor and then a year later he
received a $134,000 dividend on his $250 investment, and another black legislator who
received a $90,000 commission for getting another minority, a black man, a
contract to sell bonds for a project in the state of Florida. These people aren't
taking the position they do because they want to help poor black people. This is a
form of welfare, in effect, for the middle class, and it's a disgrace the
way that they exploit people.
IV: Does your organization have any plans to challenge the federal
government's racial classification system?
WC: No. I don't think that the answer is to try to deal with it at the
federal level, because even a very diluted Congressional Black Caucus can
have far greater effect at the federal level -- because they're there all
the time -- than you or I and all the forces of the planet can have in
trying to change events at the federal level.
IV: Your emphasis, then, would be on the state level.
WC: Yes. I have had the staff draft language that we would try to get
introduced in the California state legislature that would prohibit the
government from even asking people about their identity. I don't think I
can get that through the legislature. I know I can't get it through the
legislature, but I want to go through the legislature and at least let them
help me frame the debate. When the bill comes up for hearing, the NAACP,
the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, and Chinese for Affirmative Action,
will all show up, and they will argue why we need to be asking this stuff.
The University of California will be there, and they'll be saying, "Well,
we need to monitor our outreach efforts." Some of this is valid; some of it is
not. So, I want to at least have the debate, and then after the bill is
killed in committee, head right to the ballot. Put it on the ballot, and
have the people of our state address it. I have a poll that shows that if
this gets on the ballot, it passes by 65-35%.
IV: Really?
WC: Yeah. There's just a feeling among people that something is wrong about
these boxes. I had a professor once who said that we all have a "knower."
There's just certain things we know. You don't have to tell us; we just
know it. Our knower tells us that there's something fundamentally flawed about a
nation that prides itself on equality and wanting to be color-blind, yet
asking people to identify what their race is.
IV: So, you're anticipating defeat in the legislature, but you feel the
value of that debate will allow you to take the issue to the people in the
form of a ballot initiative, which you believe will pass by a 2-1 margin.
WC: That's right. That has been the way of California for the last twenty
years. You can't get things through the legislature, because the
legislature is far more liberal, Democrat -- and I don't have any problem with it being
Democrat -- but you just can't get a serious discussion about public policy
questions.
IV: Why not go to the ballot initiative directly?
WC: I think that it's useful, it's very useful to kinda smoke them out
initially. You learn a lot when you go to the legislature; you find out who
your opponents are going to be. It's like a huge focus group. If you've run
a campaign before, you know the value of having a focus group. Going to the
legislature and spending three or four months in hearings is like a huge
focus group that allows you to test your arguments and to test theirs and
to see where you need to structure your campaign. Plus, I do believe that the
initiative process ought to be reserved as a last resort. People should
grab their pitchforks and charge the hill after they've exhausted all the other
remedies.
IV: If successful in California, might you take this to other states?
WC: Yes. You know I believe that had we started out discussing the whole
issue of racial classifications and why the nation needs to get away from
that, that might have solved the whole debate about affirmative action
preferences in the process. Because if you can't ask people about their
classification, you can't begin to confer benefits on that basis. I think
there's more of a readiness to do away with the classifications that
transcends race. On the issue of affirmative action, black people can be
seduced by the black establishment. They say, "Hey, this is for you. He
wants to take this away from you" -- even though 90% of black people don't
have a clue of what affirmative action is and will never benefit from it.
IV: They just know they should be in favor of it.
WC: They just know they should be in favor of it. It's one of those truths
that we hold to be self-evident.
IV: Because the Jesse Jacksons tell them.
WC: Yeah. Let me give you an example of that principle. We just had a poll
conducted in Florida by Zogby International, and the language that we read
to them was identical to 209 and initiative 200 in Washington. "The state
shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual
or group upon the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin
in the operation of public employment, public education and public
contracting." The question was: would you vote in favor of or oppose that
language? 83% of Floridians said "aye." I'll vote in favor of that. About
84% of whites said yes. 78% of black people said yes. So, if you just use
language with no games being played, and you ask black people whether they
would be in favor of that language, there's a very small difference between
black and white on that issue. Now, I promise you, however, that at the end of a six-month campaign, the
gap between black and white on that language that I have read would
probably be 40 points.
IV: That's due to what?
WC: That's due to the Jesse Jacksons, the Maxine Waters, the black
legislators there saying, "This guy wants to take away your affirmative
action." See, we've gone now from the principle of treating people
differently, now they then go to the code words. "He wants to take away
affirmative action from you."
IV: So, a long term strategy on this racial classification issue might be
to use the ballot initiative to remove these categories in a majority of
states or in enough states that represent a majority of the country's population.
That might then compel the feds to eliminate these boxes on that level.
WC: Yes. Whether people want to admit it or not, the reason we're having
this big debate throughout the nation and why the Supreme Court will
eventually deal with issue even if the federal government will not, is
because of California -- the decision that the Regents made, and
Proposition 209 followed by Initiative 200 in Washington state. We're signaling the fact
that the American people have changed their attitudes about treating people
differently under the guise of somehow leveling the playing field -- under
the guise that affirmative action is a no-cost program, that nobody pays a
price for it, there is no tax here. I don't mean tax in the sense of dollar tax.
I mean prices that we all pay, social cost, the marginalization that accompanies
it. So, by going to the ballot in California, you legitimize the debate.
Right now, as strange as it seems, if you and I went to a lecture and we
debated Julian Bond or somebody, and we argued that these racial
classifications ought to go, we'd be the ones on the fringe. Even though
we're representing a point of view that is held by the overwhelming
majority of the American people, overwhelming. We would be on the fringe. We're the
ones that are being divisive. We're the ones who are upsetting the
apple-cart.
IV: We would be painted as those who are willing to strip "black" Americans
of "protection," leaving them defenseless against racism.
WC: That's right, but the boxes, in fact, make us all the more conscious of
race. The debate that's ongoing in America right now is between two
different principles. One, as John F. Kennedy said on June 11, 1963, "Race
has no place in American life or law." The other philosophy, which came out
of the Bakke decision, says, "Race matters -- you have to use race to get
beyond race."
IV: That perpetuates race, though.
WC: That perpetuates race. Once you start using it, you don't get beyond
it. You start building an infrastructure around it. You begin to get people who
have a vested interest in its maintenance. That applies to any subject. If
you're talking about real estate, and you get a tax break for owning your
own home, the minute you want to take that away, I guarantee you there will
be a constituency there saying, "Don't take this away." If it's farm
subsidies, a constituency is built around it. If it is race benefits or
gender benefits, a constituency is built around it. Once you want to take
it away, they are going to fight you tooth and nail. The difference is that
with farm subsidies, real estate, trial lawyer benefits and other kinds of
things, they can't invoke the morality of it, the leveling of the playing
field and all those kinds of arguments. When you start talking about race,
you're able to play on people's guilt, and you're able to easily say,
"You're in this group, and he wants to take away from you," even though you
may never benefit from what is being defended.
IV: Mr. Connerly, I'm going to wrap this up. Is there something else you
want to add?
WC: No. It's a very good interview. I'm glad you went into this subject
that is more important to me than all the others, frankly. I just tactically
decided that we have to do it in a different way, but in every speech I
give, I bring up this subject, because that's the end game for me.
Yesterday I gave the keynote address to the Junior Statesmen of America, about a
thousand high school kids. Man, that was an experience. But I brought this
up about getting rid of the silly little boxes, and one Latino stood up and
said, "Why do you want to strip me of my identity? I'm proud of my
identity." I said that I wasn't trying to strip her of her identity, but
that I don't want the government taking it into account. It has nothing to
do with whether she can be proud of her identity or not. Then she lapsed
into the diversity argument, and how "my culture is important".
I said, "You can do whatever you want in your private life, but you don't
deserve any extra points for your ethnic background when you apply for
college.
IV: That's brings up one last question. This notion of a "Latino" or
"Hispanic" race is fairly absurd. It's an ethnic grouping, but quite
a few people interpret it as the "brown race" standing apart from the
"white" and "black" races. "Latinos" are by definition a mixed-race people.
Correct?
WC: That's right.
IV: Interestingly, outside of the NAACP, the organization most virulently opposed to a multiracial category was the National Council of La Raza, and though many folk have come to view "Hispanics" and "Latinos" as some sort of separate race, they are all of mixed heritage themselves.
WC: That's exactly right. Some Latinos have Indian ancestry. Some are of
European and African mixtures. I've learned this in the Florida situation.
In California, most of our Latinos are from Mexico, and we have, at the
University of California, two classifications that we use. One is Latino,
and the other is Chicano. The Chicano is largely Mexican, and you don't
want to call a Latino a Chicano in California. They get mad. Now you go to
Florida, and the Floridians don't really like the term Latino. They prefer
Hispanic. But within that Hispanic category, there are Cubans, there are
people from Mexico, there are some that are five shades darker than I am,
there are some that have brown hair and blue eyes, you know. To try to
decide who among them should somehow be getting some affirmative action is
insane. It's just insane, but yet if they all want to check the Hispanic
classification, most government agencies will confer a benefit upon them.
IV: Mr. Connerly, how can Interracial Voice readers correspond with you if
they desire?
WC: The best way probably, since I try not to get on this Internet stuff,
is to communicate to me through the ACRI website
(www.acri.org/join/index.html). You may leave a message in the comments section, and my staff will pass it along
to me. Or people can write to me at:
Ward Connerly
IV: Mr. Connerly, thank you for your time.
WC: Thank you, Charles.
INTERRACIAL VOICE (IV): Mr. Connerly, thank you for taking time from your
busy schedule today to speak with Interracial Voice.
P.O. Box 188350
Sacramento, CA 95818
|
|
©1999 all rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without
the express written consent of Interracial Voice.