Mary Baker, an African-American woman, writes this astonishing piece on "Why I am no longer an African-American" over at the American Thinker. People who know this blog and my work with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) probably understand where the article is going just based on that title, but her critique is a pretty simple critique of the divisiveness of identity-politics. Here's a clip:

It is these principles that make me proud to just be an American. So, I select for my identity the title of American. The radical ideologies of Blacks involved in the Civil Rights Movement gave birth to attitudes like those of Professor Henry Lewis Gates Jr., the Harvard professor who became livid when his identity was questioned by a white police officer. Those who embrace Professor Gate's sentiments and attitudes today are those who still believe that America owes something to the Black population for the horrors of slavery. They are the ones that continue to stoke the fires of racial hatred toward other races and promote the continued attitude of self pity within the Black community. They also hold to the teachings of Black Liberation Theology, a school of thought that I never knew existed until the presidential campaign of then Senator Barak Obama. The teachings of Black Liberation Theology run counter to the American way. They also are counterproductive to the love I hold for my country.

I began to think about how we all got to be categorized in the first place. I have not noticed on any forms that the category of American is an option to be selected. Is this division amongst us perpetrated by our very own government? It is obvious that the inspiration for the classification of African American has nothing to do with those born of African descent.

In the current legal and political environment, one should never rule a frivolous suit being successful, particularly regarding the civil rights initiatives lead by Ward Connerly. Lawsuits are even repeated exactly verbatim in the same state even after opponents lose, as was the case recently in Missouri challenging MoCRI's attempt to requalify for 2010.

But in Nebraska where voters approved the initiative in 2008, the game clock appears to be winding down with a positive result. NbCRI appears to have won on both late "signature ethics" challenges (the usual meta-"word game" the left plays with "affirmative action" and "deception") and the so-called "single subject rule." In fact, the judge's ruling on that issue is very important, as it represents a common-sense rebuff to the left on an old strategy they played somewhat successfully with the Florida Supreme Court in 2000, and it has bearing on several future states CRI's might appear in.

Below the fold I'm including the raw text of the decision as well as NbCRI's press release. Enjoy.

Read more »

The ACRI blog documents this mastery of frivolous abuse of process in Missouri.

The Missouri Secretary of State Jean Carnahan is submitting the same ballot summary proposal language that a court rejected last year, following a renewed request by MoCRI organizers to qualify for the 2010 ballot. That's an abuse of power of the highest level (reminding us of Doyle O'Connor).

Simultaneously, the ACLU has already stepped up its frivolty by filing a lawsuit based on arguments it also lost in the last legal battles in Missouri.

If this doesn't prove that preference-based affirmative action supporters will willfully abuse the legal system for the illegal and immoral purpose of financially draining opponents, I don't know what does.

It's been a couple months as my regulars here will recognize (hopefully still coming off RSS). Elections and consulting intervene, and most of my online work is reported at www.outsidelansing.com or www.Oaklandpolitics.com. But this is still the place for my thoughts on race issues and anything not fitting within the easy confines of those sites.

Over at the ACRI blog, LaShawn Barber has a nice commentary, with a good discussion thread, on banning VIP and legacy preferences, which originated from a Reason Magazine article early in 2008 by Shikha Dalmia, whom we mentioned ironically in our very last post here immediately below, two months ago, on the O'Bama presidency. Anyway, here's LaShawn's read on that article and the future of movement.

Shikha Dalmia is a Michigan writer formerly with the Detroit News. Here, in Forbes, she opines on how race preferences could be replaced with socio-economic alternatives - and how, if Barack O'Bama did it, he could transform the political landscape. The article was written just before O'Bama expanded his narrow margin, so keep it in that context. With his current margin, I'd expect to see nothing unusual out of his campaign - but that begs the question of whether he should act transformatively. For all the bluster of his change themed campaign, there is little substantively tranformative, especially on race issues, from O'Bama.

This is a topic I've addressed many times, dating as far as a Michigan Bar Journal op-ed I wrote in 2003 and other pieces for regional papers. I've suggested here recently that O'Bama could transform the landscape, as have observers like John Rosenberg over at Discriminations. Dalmia is spot on in her analysis, but, alas, I don't think its in O'Bama's heart and even if it were, we're not likely to see it from him pre-election, because his core constituency would react too harshly.

But imagine it as a mid-term ploy to help O'Bama 2012 re-election?

The brand new American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) blog (Ward Connerly's national organization focusing on race issues), run by well-known blogger LaShawn Barber, has this piece pointing out a Saginaw News article two weeks ago about Saginaw Valley State University's reaction to Michigan's Proposal 2 of 2006 (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, MCRI).

The article, by Andy Hoag, begins with this ridiculous assertion for a media source claiming to write news:

Michigan's ban on affirmative action has hurt minority recruiting at some colleges, but Saginaw Valley State University isn't among them.

Where's the evidence of a "hurt minority recruiting"?

Of course, the article is a glorification of how SVSU has evaded Proposal 2, as we'll implied in the lede. But get this:

By using focused recruiting and special scholarships as tools, SVSU has increased its share of under-represented minorities -- blacks, Hispanics and American Indians -- by 4.25 percent this fall, to 245 freshmen from 235.

This is the first full freshman class since voters passed Proposal 2 in November 2006, banning preferential treatment based on race. Some minorities already had received scholarships for fall 2007 before the proposal's passage.

It has hampered colleges such as Grand Valley State University in Allendale, where the number of under-represented minorities is down 30 percent this fall.

At Ann Arbor-based University of Michigan, which defended its affirmative action policy all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, enrollment of minority students dropped to 10.47 percent this year from 10.85 percent last year.

Reverse engineer the math in paragraph one, and you realize that that's a 4.25% increase in absolute enrollment. Says nothing about overall percentages or relative increases in percentages. Then the third paragraph refers to a 30 percent decline, but we don't know whether that's relative to other percentages or absolute. U-M's decline is measured in relative percentages (not noting that the absolute number increased because overall enrollment also increased slightly faster than minority increases), and the fall is a tiny 0.38% fall, or relative to the base 3.5% change. Hardly a falling sky.

SVSU details some of its policies, which are right at the edge of legality:

''We make sure our admissions representatives are visiting high schools that have a large percentage of minority students,'' SVSU spokesman J.J. Boehm said.

SVSU also has relied on other scholarships -- private ones, which Proposal 2 does not affect -- to keep up minority freshmen enrollment.

''Through our private SVSU Foundation, there continues to be individual scholarships for which ethnicity is a consideration, based on the wishes of the donor,'' Boehm said. ''But those are administered through the foundation, not through the university's general fund.''

While visiting high schools with high minority populations might be good recruiting and legal, if that is the sole criteria of visitation and you admit it, it might be a violation. The true criteria for recruitment should be race-neutral NEED -- high schools that are underperforming, including rural and urban schools. That will automatically give you more minorities -- but the initial criteria is need, not race. Here, it sounds like Boehm's criteria is race.

Still, a tough area to litigate.

The good news is that there are some scholarships that are need based, as the story of Jerika Beckom demonstrates.

A regular scholarship was key for SVSU junior Jerika Beckom.

Beckom, who grew up in Detroit and went to Detroit Community High, a charter school, received SVSU's Presidential Scholarship, a merit-based academic scholarship that provides full tuition for its recipients.

''It was extremely important for me to get that,'' she said. ''I come from a family that doesn't have a large income, and without that scholarship, I wouldn't have been able to go to school. People talk about getting loans, but it's hard to get them if you don't have parents with a decent credit score.''

While the Presidential Scholarship is not based on race, other private scholarships are available to minorities and underprivileged students through organizations such as the Mott Foundation.

Beckom said she is among 15 students from her senior class to attend SVSU because of those scholarships.

''It's important for those to remain available for us,'' she said. ''Most of us are coming from families with low incomes or families that haven't secured money for us to go to school.''

That should be the model. Beckom proves that you don't need a race-based scholarship system and that the real question of opportunity and equality is based on money and low incomes. Indeed, Beckom's own words echo this and say nothing about race - rather it says everything about financial obstacles. This echoed by yet another student:

''We have to have funds,'' said Davis, 21. ''In my case, I wouldn't be here without financial aid.''

If the left were truly invested in social equality, it would abandon the notion that race is the issue, and focus on the real obstacles.

The private scholarship question raised by SVSU Foundation rests on facts - is the SVSU Foundation truly private. That's a very interesting, and nuanced question. It will require some digging.

Alan Foutz, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, points up an attempt by the Michigan Department of Transportation to mis-read and misuse the federal requirement exemption of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2 (2006 - 02), here in a Lansing State Journal column. I encourage readers, despite the passing of the October 1 deadline for comments, to send MDOT and other relevant actors their own comments. The attempt mirrors California's equivalent of MDOT's attempt last year to get the US Department of Transportation to approve race-preferences and then to argue that the approval constituted a "requirement" conditioning federal money, which would thereby exempt the policy from the CCRI (or in this case MCRI). It should be vigorously resisted.

Here's a clip:

All contractors who want their bids evaluated in accordance with Michigan law and without regard to their race or sex, or the race/sex of the competition, should take note. MDOT will most likely continue to seek authorization for its race-conscious programs until it reaches the conclusion that it simply may not employ race- and sex-based preferences. Or until it gets sued.

Taxpayers should likewise be concerned, if not outraged. Studies have shown that race-based preferences result in higher construction costs.

However, there is an alternative. MDOT can comply with the Michigan constitution and remain eligible for its federal funding by committing to accomplish its 10.5 percent disadvantaged businesses participation goal by using race-neutral methods. Also, contractors competing for work on federally assisted projects will have their bids evaluated without regard to race or sex and Michigan taxpayers will be spared the extra costs of race and sex preferences.

MDOT has invited questions and comments that must be submitted before noon on Oct. 1. This is an invitation that should be accepted by anyone concerned with MDOT's race-conscious contracting programs.

If you're a follower of this blog, take heed. If you need help on how to help, contact me (my first name at firstnamelastname.com) and I'll give you some direction.

Over at the fabulous "Empirical Legal Standards" blog, a new program unveiled by the University of Michigan Law School called "Wolverine Scholars" is criticized as a move away from standards and a "rankings grab" designed solely to artficially bump U-M's average Law student GPA so as to also bring U-M up in national prestige rankings (which include GPA as a criteria).

One of ELS's comments points out the "elephant in the room," that the program, which would allow only U-M undergrads with a GPA greater than 3.80 who have not yet taken an LSAT to apply to Law School under "holistic review", would give U-M a perfect opportunity to bypass Proposal 2 (since it can't ask other undergrad schools for racial IDs, and since a student on U-M's own campus will have a reputation including racial identity that can be easily ascertained by fellow U-M Law School admissions officers with a few phone calls) because it further clouds the process and eliminates a standard of measurement (the LSAT test, meaning that future racial compositions couldn't be easily challenged because some of students wouldn't have comparative LSAT data EVEN AVAILABLE for review). The nice think about ELS's though, in a way, is that it ignores the race preference issue and is critical of U-M solely because the new system is standardless and will create other unintended consequences.

Read the whole analysis, and you'll get the gist of what's going on. We're following the story deeper as well, so stay tuned.

Ward Connerly and Valery Pech Orr have one less obstacle in Colorado now that the parallel "twin" amendment sponsored by opponents of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) has failed to qualify with enough signatures.

An initiative that would have preserved affirmative action programs in Colorado fell short of the required number of signatures to make November's crowded ballot, the secretary of state's office said Wednesday.

Initiative 82 was nearly 8,000 signatures short following a line-by- line verification of the petitions, according to Secretary of State Mike Coffman.

There are 18 statewide issues on the Nov. 4 ballot, in addition to local ballot questions and races, state legislative contests, and U.S. House, Senate and presidential races.

The technique was an interesting one - the twin amendment copied CCRI in almost every word except for a rider at the end allowing programs that are already allowed by federal law. The rider might effectively nullify CCRI, assuming the twin amendment received more overall votes than CCRI.

Oh, and 18 ballot proposals is ridiculous. Michiganders complain that Michigan's ballot procedure is "too easy" or one that it was one of the "easiest in the country," need only look to Colorado, which truly is among the easiest. Michigan never qualifies more than 5-6, and even in 2006 one of the five was placed on by the legislature. Our average is 2-3.

In a disheartening development, according to Arizona Republic, the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI) petitions were, after review by County Recorders (Clerks), rejected because a number of signatures were found to be invalid. AzCRI is the third of five to fail to obtain sufficient signatures, and rumors of paid "blockers" who intentionally signed false signatures on a large scale preceded today's development, suggesting that a new era in blocking and how signature-gathering operations teams will need to respond to it, has emerged. Three other petitions in Arizona apparently failed this year, no petitions in Oklahoma have succeeded since the Democrat Attorney General Drew Edmonson indicted a petition-operation management team for work they did 3 years ago, and others failed in Missouri, to name a few.

The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative initially submitted 334,735 signatures to the state. But following petition reviews by the Secretary of State's Office and the state's 15 county recorders, that number was whittled down to 194,961 valid signatures. That's short of the 230,047 required for a Constitutional amendment.

In positive news though, Nebraska appears to have been sufficient and qualified, according to NCRI's campaign manager Doug Tietz, on KPTM Fox 42's online site reprinting AP wire reports.

Jason Gillman over at Michigan Taxes Too Much raises a nice point about how "non-profits" really exist at the expense of the taxpayer and are "public". While this doesn't change the current interpretation of the law treating non-profits as private entities, it is a valid point philosophically so we reiterated our position generally against the very idea of non-profits (in the sense of government subsidy through by giving tax breaks to donors, not as a concept where someone or group spends after-tax dollars without making a profit).

Regardless, you can catch the full exchange at Gillman's site.

Last I looked, I couldn't tell what someone's thoughts were based on how they looked. And I know its a bad idea to try. But in the never-ending battle of the left to invent great stories of fraud and deception by one of the Civil Rights Initiative (this time Missouri), we have yet another admission by a lefty that its ok to pre-judge people on how they look. St. Louis Today reports:

"He looked like a progressive — he had tattoos, he had an earring, he may have had a mohawk," McKoy said of the petitioner. "He seemed like a left-wing hippie type guy. And he almost got me."

Apparently progressives can spot another progressive when they see them. I didn't know mohawk, tattoos, or earrings were definite signs of progressivism. I know a ton of libertarians, classical liberals, and others who might have such identifying things and are far from modern-day liberals.

What's fascinating about these fraud allegations is how they prove the point the CRIs are trying to make.

But get this - Lee Albright, owner of National Petition Management, a Michigan-firm that is the giant of the industry and being paid to simultaneously block MoCRI (they are strong-arming their circulators not work for their upstart competitor circulating MoCRI) and circulate a casino petition, got a taste of the fraud allegations. Here's the story, from the same paper:

Dave Maus, a retired salesman from Oakville, said a young woman approached him about two weeks ago with the casinos petition. He recalled her saying the measure would raise $105 million for schools.

It wasn't until he got home that he realized the initiative would also do away with wagering caps and limit the number of casinos in the state.

"I know we should always read a petition, and that's nobody's fault but my own," he said.

You have to love the honesty and responsibility the signer took though. But the point - that the left is just as capable of using deception - in this case outright bait and switch - is effectively made here.

Finally, the Columbia Tribune reports that evil "out-of-state" opponents of MoCRI have been imported from guess where? Michigan. Guess who? BAMN.

It’s tough going, though, with collectors reporting they averaged four to 10 signatures per hour. For some it’s even tougher. A Michigan group, By Any Means Necessary, dispatched members to Columbia to disrupt the efforts of people collecting signatures for the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, a proposed constitutional amendment that would end affirmative action in the state.

For the past two weeks, a cat-and-mouse game has played out as signature gatherers have tried to stay one step ahead of BAMN members, who have discouraged people from signing.

That's right - BAMN has no active connection to Missouri - but it seems they believe its OK now to do things in other states. Shoe on another foot? Of course, the Columbia Tribune didn't make that point quite the way I just did - but ...

Ah. It's a bit more clear why the Detroit News opined against 10% plans.

According to the Michigan Daily, Rep. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) proposed it in legislation recently. His idea, while I understand it is well-motivated, is misguided. MCRI's goal was never to dictate exactly how universities would respond - only to set the guidelines. Let's allow universities some time and flexibility in their response and see where that puts us before adopting anything like this.

Send Jones a (polite) note opposing this proposal at this time.

We missed covering it here during our upgrade of blog software, but this one is priceless.

Priceless.

If you're a regular, you'll remember Doyle O'Connor, former Board of Canvasser member who refused to follow a court order to place the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2, on the ballot.

Well, the State Bar remembers him too, and they are investigating him for disciplinary action in his behavior on MCRI, according to this March 14, 2008 Livingston Argus-Press story. Zarko Research has known of the complaint for some time for various reasons, but we couldn't go into it because of our own involvement in the matter (which includes the video link below).

The priceless part? Obviously forces are rallying to call Doyle a hero and say the Bar should drop charges. One them is Michigan Democratic Party ruler Mark Brewer, known for his own iron-fist within the party (honest Dems will tell you many a story).

More than a dozen individuals and groups, including the Michigan Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters of Michigan, have urged the state Attorney Discipline Board to drop the charges. The board tries and disciplines lawyers for alleged misconduct.

"It's really an outrage," said state Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer. "If lawyers are going to be subjected to this kind of second-guessing for acts as a public official, why would any lawyer want to serve in public office? This is a political vendetta."

Wait. That's the same Mark Brewer that swatted at our cameras 2.5 years ago when he was giving the same Doyle O'Connor "orders" on how to vote. I guess he doesn't want anyone second-guessing O'Connor's "acts as a puppet-err-public official" while operating under comrade Brewer's orders.

Here's Brewer (check him out 28 seconds in), caught red-handed giving Doyle his marching orders, and not so happy at my camera.

In its "quick hits" editorials, the Detroit News opines that a 10% plan for Michigan in the wake of Proposal 2 is a bad idea. I didn't catch where this was being seriously considered, but I agree with the Detroit News here. The inflexible % plans create other issues that aren't worth it, particularly when, in Michigan, far improved local outreach and increased selectivity among the national pool of minority applicants, would be at least 75% effective. Add socio-economic tools and simply focusing on long-term repair of troubled K-12 districts, and U-Michigan should be able to accomplish what it needs in a decade. Of course, that implies that U-M policy makes will actually commit to a long-term program, rather than seek a short-term "fix", and such an implication is always dangerous in that ivory tower.