XML Feeds
ZR Condemns KKK and Rebukes any support they may offer.
This blog is a partisan blog, obviously in favor of passage of Proposal 2. For this reason, I have intentionally not turned any investigative focus to possible errors made by proponents of Proposal 2, and we have kept confidential and sensitive information where it belongs. But sometimes something needs to be said, and in this case the issue is already out there, so I will give my one response to today's Detroit News article headlined "KKK Backing Welcomed", where Ward Connerly is quoted as allegedly "welcoming" KKK backing. The lead to the article is somewhat misleading, since Connerly's statement was qualified, but it is clear that Connerly's answer fell into a very specific trap and I must admit was a mistake on his part. With the number of interviews Connerly does I can understand the difficulty in avoiding a misstep at some point, but it is important to admit it when it happens, and important to loudly condemn the KKK "at every turn."
First, what happened. I take the liberty here, which I rarely do, of clipping the entire article, of which I'll insert commentary:
KKK backing welcomed (Main lead)
Prop 2 leader says he'll take support wherever he can get it to end affirmative action. (sub-lead)
Ronald J. Hansen / The Detroit NewsVideo: Ward Connerly on the KKK backing Proposal 2 (linked here at YouTube)
Ward Connerly, the California man leading a ballot measure to end most affirmative action in Michigan, accepts Ku Klux Klan support for his position in a video clip posted this week on the Internet.
[ZR: This is a misstatement of Connerly's careless statement, but given his statement one can understand how it has been interpreted this way].Connerly on Friday defended his remark in a statement, saying he accepts support for banning affirmative action wherever he finds it.
He said he does not support hateful activities.
But opponents of Connerly's Proposal 2 immediately seized on the clip as a sign that it would satisfy hate groups, not ensure equality.
In the 39-second clip posted on YouTube.com, Mark Bernstein of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission says Connerly's group has no support from notable civil rights groups.
"In fact just to illustrate how extreme and radical this group is," Bernstein says, "the only large organization that's endorsed the MCRI is the Ku Klux Klan."
[ZR: I was in the room when Bernstein made a similar statement to the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. Bernstein ignores huge organizations like the National Association of Scholars, to name one, when he says this, but that's a trivial point.]Then the clip cuts to Connerly.
"If the Ku Klux Klan thinks that equality is right, God bless them," Connerly says. "Thank them for finally reaching the point where logic and reason are being applied, instead of hate."
[ZR: If you view the clip itself, Ward is being somewhat glib here, but what he says is clearly a mistake. He certainly intends to say somethiing along the lines of "If the Klan has changed to the point of accepting equality, that's a good thing." But even that misses the point to some extent. Even if the Klan changes and moderates somewhat, the only real change that it could make that would be a "blessing" would be for it to completely disband and for its former members to rebuke its history and existence. The Klan must be condemned at every turn, regardless of whether SOME of its message is correct (even blind squirrels and broken clocks are sometimes right), because simply, it takes on the name of the Klu Klux Klan, which has a vile history of evil and murder. So if the Klan has come to believe equality is a value, it's not a blessing -- its a counterproductive curse to that value (although the Klan's endorsement or dis-endorsement of something doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of the argument or value involved). Taking on the very name of the KKK, just as would be the case in taking on the name of Al-Queda, Joseph Stalin, or the Nazi Party, invokes a relationship of endorsement to previous murder and terrorism employed by each organization. And Ward's mistake is compounded by thinking (or glibly suggesting) the Klan's motivation for equality is "logic and reason ... instead of hate." Merely being a supporter of MCRI does not bestow upon you logic and reason anymore than merely being an opponent of MCRI would - logic and reason come solely from the reasons for which you take those positions, and as Waymire recognizes below, it is most certainly true the Klan's motivation is purely political and emotional, not logical or reasonable. For this reason, I recognize the mistake made here, and personally condemn the Klan and rebuke any support they may offer. MCRI does not need the dozen or so votes that might come from the weakened and increasingly irrelevant (which is why they are trying to to ride along with MCRI) Klan, and if you are a Klan member I tell you now that generally you shouldn't vote at all, let alone for Proposal 2.]
The clip is taken from an interview for the forthcoming video "Arise: The Battle Over Affirmative Action" by Firelight Media, which has examined and advocated for civil rights in its earlier works.
Firelight, which operates in New York and California, said it didn't know how the clip was obtained.
[ZR: Clearly, someone leaked the information at a critical time, and the question itself was set in the form of a trap.]"Every day I average about 12 media interviews," Connerly said in a statement. "During each of these interviews, my message stays the same. Equality before the law should not only be the ideal but the practice of our government regardless of race.
"Throughout my life I have made absolutely clear my disdain for the KKK. However, like all Americans, I hope that this group will move beyond its ugly history and agree that equality before the law is the ideal. If they or any group accepts equality for all people, I will be the first to welcome them."
[ZR: As I've said above, I personally believe it must go farther. Klan members must not only accept the principle of equality for all people, they must acknowledge and rebuke their terroristic and murderous past, and that includes disbanding or leaving the organization. It is very much like the concept of repenting - but repentence requires acknowledgement, something the Klan doesn't do.]
David Waymire, a spokesman for One United Michigan, which supports affirmative action and opposes Proposal 2, doesn't accept Connerly's explanation of his statement.
"Do you think anybody really believes the Ku Klux Klan supports equal rights?" Waymire said. "The Klan deserves to be rejected at every turn, not embraced. They have been playing the race card from Day One."
[ZR: As they say, and as Jennifer Gratz has properly said and been quoted about the Klan, even a broken clock is right twice a day. David Waymire is right here, and perhaps it will be the one (or maybe two, I'm waiting for the second) time I ever agree with him.]
The video clip is only the latest incident linking Connerly or his group, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, to racial extremists.Last month, the Grand Rapids Press reported about a photo showing Connerly shaking hands with John Raterink, chairman of the Michigan Council of Conservative Citizens, which is considered a white separatist group.
[ZR: That story was bunk. Anyone can be photographed with nearly anyone - it doesn't imply endorsement. And while I believe the CCC is an extremist organization, the article presents no evidence of "white separatist," indeed, only saying it is "considered" such a group.]
Connerly said he didn't know Raterink's background when the picture was taken.
[ZR: This is the correct position]"I have nothing but contempt for separatist groups based on race that have done so much to hurt black people throughout American history. Proposal 2 is about equality and fairness, not separation and preferences," he said in his statement.
[ZR: This would have been the correct response in the video interview on YouTube. It's unfortunate Ward tried to be glib and deviated from this message.]
11/04/06 04:16:21 pm , by Chetly Zarko 
, 270 views, Racial & Gender Issues, Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), 8 comments » 8 comments
IF the KKK supports equality...
...then I am the pope. The key word is IF. Clearly Ward was being facetious and his comments (though foolish) were taken out of context. It was foolish to say something that could easily be misqouted but you are even more foolish if Michiganders are gullible enough to swallow this canard.
In the press' rush to tar Prop 2 with racist undertones it may have forgotten that the civil rights movement was about society becoming "colorblind". Now the press wants to make it seem as if "not considering race and gender is racist and sexist" as Jesse Jackson once wrongly put it.
Yes, of course you got "both sides" of the story as you learned in journalism school, but when you title your piece "KKK backing welcomed", you can hardly claim to be "objective". I am so sick of the press pretending to be objective. In the future, I would like to see each column emblazoned with a scarlet letter across the dateline denoting the bias we are about to be exposed to "C, S, L, R, RWNJ" for "communist", "socialist", "liberal", "republican" and "right-wing nut-job" as they did to the foreheads of New England criminals in days gone by.
The press is largely responsible for the mediocrity of political candidates. Who but a fool would want to subject themselves to the vicious media maelstrom just for the possibility of being elected? I would love to see how well you columnists would stand up inside the media bubble for 24 hours. Perhaps before journalism programs grant a candidate their degree, they should require that candidate to hold a press conference to announce their entry into the profession, the job of the 'reporters' at that press conference would be to smear, slander and otherwise degrade the integrity and identity of the journalistic candidate - being sure to repeat the most embarassing 5-second videoclip at the top of each hour. Such a requirement may lead to some humility among journalists - perhaps then we would have more integrity in the press.
I fail to see what purpose is served in you giving another kick to Ward Connerly.
The News’ story was a hatchet job. As you know, the News’could write no less inflammatory things about tabout BAMN and CAIR and their active association with One United Michigan. These radical groups have a much more formal role with OUM and the anti-Proposal 2 movement than the Klan ever could have with MCRI. Yet, the News has not written that story.
Nor has the news written any story exposing Mark Bernstein, such as his conflict of interest (organizing a fundraiser for OUM at his home while a matter was pending before the Civil Rights Commission he chairs.); the calls for investigations into Bernstein’s possible abuse of CRC powers; or his rank hypocrisy in hiring no minorities and few women at his own law firm.
In doing its reporting off of www.youtube.com the News did not consider, or it ignored, the similarity between the story it was given and a tactic used in California in 1996 against Proposal 209. In September 1996, the student government of Cal State University at Northridge -- who opposed Prop 209 -- paid Klansman David Duke thousands of dollars to come to CSUN to speak IN FAVOR of Prop 209. The result of Duke's endorsement of Prop 209, they hoped, would be a backlash against the Proposal at the polls.
Sound familair? That is precisely what Mark Bernstein was doing and which the News abetted -- linking Proposal 2 to the Klan.
Gutter-style political games like this are rather unbecoming of a Chairman of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, don't you think?
And the irony of it all is that Mark Bernstein and the foes of Proposal 2 have more in common with the Klan than Ward Connerly ever could.
As his opposition to the principle of race-neutrality embodied in Proposal 2 makes clear, Mark Bernstein wants to use race to determine outcomes in university admissions and state employment.
So does the Klan.
Both Bernstein and the Klan would subordinate the principles of merit, race-neutrality, and non-discrimination to preferences based on race. Bernstein and the Klan just differ on the races they want to favor and the races they want to discriminate against.
In contrast, Ward Connerly has been unwaveringly consistent: supporters of Proposal 2 do not care about race. They are concerned only that the best be chosen from an applicant pool that is assembled fairly; without race being a factor.
And those are principles that both Mark Bernstein AND the Klan oppose.
What exactly is the present day Klan, anyway? It is not as if this group is incorporated, has dues or even does anything in any organized way. Is it even fair to say it is still an "organization"?
So, by doing what they have done, Mark Bernstein and the Detroit News have given organization and credibility to what is in truth a motley collection of at most a dozen individual flakes. And they have done that for absolutely the worst of reasons. How's that for ironic?
To call this entry a "kick" to Ward Connerly severely misses the point. I believe the movement to end race preferences must be "open" to itself and criticism, and continually evolving and trying to improve itself. Failure to change and continuing to provide the media with "ammunition," as Ward did here, risks failure in future battles (and it doesn't end with Michigan). And my comments here were quite measured, with extreme understanding for how the media event unfolded and understanding for how and why Ward might have went there. But I also felt, with respect to this particular argument, that it was important to acknowledge. And I also think the post acknowledged that this was a media hatchet job (from the "leaker" to the media that picked it up). I also appreciate the readership of this blog - it is unlikely I will sway a single vote - while my readership is diverse, my readers are largely analysts themselves (with their minds made up) and I do not have the broadcast ability of radio or TV so the message isn't written for that kind of audience. Had I been designing TV or radio ads, or even speaking as an analyst on a local talk show about the issue, my response would have been different.
How was I wrong?
Here’s how I think you erred. You provider fodder for Ward Connerly’s many enemies a the worst possible time -- the weekend before the election. While you may have thought you were engaging in a thoughtful reflection (and I am sure you were) the opponents of the MCRI would not have been so detached. Imagine this headline and story in the Free Press this past Monday. The quotes all come from your post:
“Connerly, welcomes KKK support. MCRI supporters distance themselves and criticize remarks.
Cracks are appearing the organization promoting the MCRI over sponsor Ward Connerly’s remarks in which he welcomed KKK support for Proposal 2. Chetly Zarko, a former MCRI official, called Connerly’s remarks “glib” and a “careless…mistake”. Zarko, an early organizer of the MCRI, distanced himself from Connerly by issuing a statement that he “rebukes any support the KKK might offer.” In his remarks criticizing Connerly Zarko said, “[b]eing a supporter of MCRI does not bestow upon you logic and reason…”
I could have made it a lot worse but I’m mostly watching poll returns tonight.
First, I tried to send you a private e-mail but it bounced, and you should send me one if you want to carry this on in more detail in privacy.
For the public reading this, the simple answer is two-fold:
Most importantly, for me personally, the blog retains its credibility by addressing issues truthfully, the way I see them. The Klan is a group I feel morally compelled to rebuke "at every turn", and while I may know Ward doesn't support them in any way because I know him personally, this story was designed to convey that impression (and it was also designed to monolithically paint all MCRI supporters as Klansmen or at least sympathizers, and, indeed, although not dominant in my mind when I wrote this, since my personal reputation is now directly tied to Ward's reputation in some ways, it can be important to dissociate from certain mischaracterizations of Ward).
This was an important issue to address - and I do believe, as several other MCRI supporters have reinforced in private conversations, that Ward was wrong here (not in his heart, but rather in his precise words). I believe everything I said in the post was correct, and perhaps overly explanatory in favor of Ward. I think, or hope, that Ward probably has hindsight on this matter and realizes his words weren't measured (unfortunately, on race, we have to measure every word since we can't have an honest discussion). He's a true pro at this kind of thing, but even the best occasionally slips and/or can improve. As I stated as I began the entry, since I am a partisan on the issue it was and would always be rare that I comment on negatives of the pro-side, but I believed this one was important.
I do agree with everything you said about the hypocrisy of Bernstein, the irony of the issue and our opponents who oppose equality just as the Klan does in their actions, etc. You are right about the overall failure to report and bias of the media - - but we can't control that and must work within our knowledge of that. We know that the media wants to use the KKK issue this way, and must be prepared for that. Not discussing the issue and not condemning the Klan "at every turn" has many downsides, including the ones on my conscience.
Second, from a tactical perspective I concluded that a story similar to your hypothetical was a highly unlikely one and would not harm the initiative. Unlikely (extremely remote) because I'm not the target anymore (Ward, Jen, and Leon are) and introducing the elements you refer to from me would complicate a story and perverted message that is already exceedingly simple and elegant. That is, the News' and now dozens of other media outlets (it hit radio on election day, and is across the liberal internet and AP wires), had an exceedingly simple and elegant miscontextualization (CONSERVATIVE WJR 760AM radio aired only as "God bless the KKK"). Why would you complicate that with stuff about other MCRI supporters rebuking the KKK? And that might even be good. If a person who was inclined to vote for MCRI but was on the bubble enough to even consider this as a reason to change their mind - and given that they have already heard the simple story - your hypothetical story would add elements that might make them realize the story was irrelevant to issues. Since the argument against the relevance of the KKK endorsement is that MCRI can't control it and the rules of logic are that the rightness or wrongness of an issue isn't determined by associational guilts, the introduction of MCRI supporters that disagree with Ward about the KKK statement would introduce that same issue, and the voter might realize that not all MCRI supporters are alike (Klan, Zarko, Connerly ... all different ... "diverse", to pardon the irony). So the grossly twisted (I grant to you the possibility of the media using ellipses as grossly you have) story you fear would itself reframe the issue as intellectual rather than emotional - and that's ground where MCRI can not be defeated.
I feel a bit vindicated by this blog entry by Dumi, an African-American male blogger at U-Michigan. Here's the link: http://blackatmichigan.blogspot.com/2006/11/one-of-many.html
He attacks this entry as a "defense" of Connerly (quote to follow):
And lastly, the only thing more ridiculous [sic] the youtube video of Connerly endorsing the Klan's endorsement of Proposal 2, is Zarko's defense/revision of Connerly.
Chet