University of California Regent Ward Connerly owes the public an
apology. During an appearance on CNN recently, Connerly said he
does not think Senator Trent Lott is racist and that “one can
believe in segregation and believe in equality of races.”
Connerly has a right to hold whatever opinions he wishes. But
since he has made himself a public figure in molding
California’s race policy over the last ten years ““ and
since he has done it by sitting on the governing board of the
university ““ he has some explaining to do about his
statements.
Connerly’s conservative politics and past have led to his
clashing with the black community and also to critical public
perceptions of his intentions.
Since being appointed to the UC Board of Regents by former Gov.
Pete Wilson, Connerly has focused on eliminating affirmative action
which helps minorities enroll in college in higher numbers. In
1995, he proposed SP-1 and SP-2, eliminating the consideration of
race, gender and ethnicity in UC admissions, hiring and
contracting. Connerly was also behind Proposition 209, which banned
affirmative action statewide and fueled efforts in other states
such as Washington. Now he supports President George W. Bush, who
is fighting against the University of Michigan’s affirmative
action policy, hoping the Supreme Court will set a national
anti-affirmative action precedent.
Currently, Connerly is building a campaign for his Racial
Privacy Initiative, which would prevent public institutions from
collecting or using data on race in an idealistic, somewhat naive
effort to build a race-blind society.
Though Connerly insists he does not support government-sponsored
segregation, the fact that he implies segregation and racism can
exist simultaneously at all merits, at the very least, further
explanation, especially to UC students. As a regent, Connerly has
used his regental position in the past to advance his racial
politics ““ defending segregation in any form from a UC
platform is completely unacceptable. He has inappropriately used
the UC to make himself a public figure in race-related issues and
should expect the scrutiny he is currently receiving, and will
continue to receive.
The word “segregation” has accumulated a negative
connotation throughout U.S. history. Its meaning can vary from
self-initiated “segregation,” such as people
socializing with others of similar background, to state-imposed
segregation in public facilities. Connerly’s comment that
someone can be segregationist while not racist is reminiscent of
the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v.
Ferguson.
In the past, Connerly has discussed segregation and said
similarly ambiguous things like, “I believe that we certainly
would have a more desirable society if we were integrated. But
I’m not sure that we’re forever poisoned by not sitting
next to somebody in class that’s a different background from
us, skin color-wise or whatever.”
Connerly has been uncooperative in discussing his statements.
When the University of California Students Association sought an
apology, Connerly rudely said, “I’m not apologizing;
tell them to go to hell.” Students don’t deserve such
disrespectful treatment from a man who supposedly has their best
interests in mind.
Connerly needs to issue an apology and explain his controversial
statements to clarify his stance and make amends with UCSA.
Otherwise, Connerly will segregate himself from the student
population.