 |
|
|
|
|
Zarko Research Original Essay
|
Video is ".avi" format, without sound, and open with Windows Media Player.
Inciting a riot!
With an almost fanatical, religious expression on their fraces, Luke Massie, Chair of By Any Means Necessary, at left, and Shanta Driver, attorney and BAMN leader, at right, begin the riot with what is clearly a pre-planned maneuver. The image sequence at bottom shows that they are the first two to begin a systematic process of shouting down the Board. It is ZR's opinion that Driver's conduct violates standards of professional conduct for Michigan Bar members, and that both Driver and Massie are guilty of inciting a riot. When directly asked in the hallway as the riot was escalating, local police however cited their fear that they would be sued if they intervened too early - and that they would only intervene if "property was being destroyed." That happened minutes later, as the crowd surged forward and flipped over a table. See video links above.
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative v. Board of State Canvassers, Docket No. 264204, LC No. 00-000000, December 20, 2005 Ruling.
Is ZR's publishing useful to you? HELP the author continue providing value-added media through a variety of mechanisms, including by hiring ZR, making a direct donation, or clicking on any of the advertisers links if they interest you or you do business with them anyway. |
|
by Chetly Zarko, ANN ARBOR, MI
July 25, 2003.
Rage or reason?
This theme will be repeated in the upcoming battle over race preferences in Michigan. So far, defenders of racial preferences have resorted overwhelmingly to rage and intimidation; while opponents such as Ward Connerly and his supporters continue to argue with reason and civility.
The latest resort to rage came from none other than the Honorable John D. Dingell, the long-standing and previously esteemed representative of this district. On July 9th, he quietly circulated to some local media a letter to Connerly following his July 8th speech announcing the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Only a few in the media reported, in short blurbs, the content of the letter. Nine days later, Mr. Connerly wasn't surprised to find the letter in his mail, and now on Dingell's official website. Connerly's eloquent response raised awareness of the letter.
Pretending to speak for the entirety of the "people of Michigan," Dingell's resorts to the childish mantra, "go home, and stay there." Dingell baldly asserts, without citing a single one of Connerly's words, that Connerly is practicing "divisive racial politics" and a brand of "hate and fear, division and destruction." Personal attacks are usually out of line, but when made, most thinking people expect at least a facial appeal to reason through evidence or logic. When the charge is racism and hate-mongering, a reasonable person calls for even more than superficial evidence. Dingell's ad hominem bothers with neither.
 Dingell further rants at the "ignorant meddling" by a "non-resident ... out-of-state agitator." Dingell's demand is a request for silence - a remarkably undemocratic act for a Congressman. Although Dingell doesn't threaten any of the forces granted by his position; he does misuse the power of his pulpit and government resources by disrespecting an American citizen's right of expression. By implication, anyone associating with or supporting a Michigan ballot initiative must also be practicing "hate and fear, division and destruction." This kind of guilt by association is undemocratic and unreasoned. Mr. Dingell has attacked his own constituents who may, for whatever principled reasons, agree with Connerly, disagree with race preferences, or simply desire reasoned debate about important public policy issues.
 Connerly however appealed to reason - the reason outlined by the United States Constitution. Connerly correctly noted the "eerie similarity" between Dingell's clarion to "go home" and those of sixties southerner's like George Wallace, whose archaic views of "state's right's" trampled on those of the individual.
While Mr. Dingell himself has a right to disagree with Mr. Connerly, his inflammatory, and itself divisive, language should be denounced. It is presumptuous for anyone to speak for the entirety of the people of Michigan. It is equally inappropriate to draw divisions among American citizens based on their state of residence, especially following the events of September 11. We live in a nation that encourages national and local debate; that encourages the free flow of its citizenry and commerce across the states; and that no longer finds an intellectually sound reason for segregating the political views of blacks or whites, northerners or southerners, or of a Californian from a Michigander.
Ideas are best left to stand or fall on their own merit. Dingell's previous work of merit in the education field has been tainted by this outburst.
 Other examples of rage in the movement defending race preferences include Agnes Aleobua. A student leader locally known for her rage, she works through a group that appeals to intimidation through its very name, "By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)." When Connerly spoke, she yelled, "We won't be silent until people like you are no longer allowed to speak on a public forum and spew your racism to the rest of America." Later arrested by U-Michigan police for being so disorderly as to interfere with Connerly's right to speak to the public, her comment reflects the lack of reason in a movement built to intimidate all opposition from expressing political viewpoints.
Part of a larger movement labelling anyone against race preferences as automatically "racist," these forces care not whether one supports other legitimate mechanisms for social and economic justice that might be more effective (e.g., socio-economic preferences). The middle ground in the race debate is driven underground; as the suggestion of any other viable alternative draws with it the ire and rage of race preference supporters.
Dingell's letter is as much an appeal to supporters to eschew reason and express their rage, as it is a veiled threat to those who might associate with Connerly's viewpoints. It is a subtle attack on the principles and reason behind the Constitution.
This is the choice we face when we go to the ballot box in November, 2004. Will rage or reason win out?
Reprinted and content edited last on November 8, 2003.
In 2003, the following letter exchange with United States Congressman John Dingell (D, MI) occurred that was related to this story. Congressman Dingell engages in a more subtle, but perhaps more insidious, use of rage:
July 9, 2003 letter from Dingell to Connerly. Dingell personally attacks Connerly and suggests Connerly has no right to come to Michigan. Dingell posted the letter to his official website, and had no qualms about using government mailing services.
Chetly Zarko's July 20 letter to Dingell, as a constituent and freelance writer.
Ward Connerly's letter dated July 21 to Dingell.
Jennifer Gratz's July 21 reply to Dingell.
Barbara Grutter's July 21 reply to Dingell.
| |
|
