Foes of Affirmative Action Form Group to Spread Message

New York Times

January 16, 1997

By B. DRUMMOND AYRES Jr.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The opponents of affirmative action who persuaded California voters to pass Proposition 209 last November announced Wednesday that they had formed an American Civil Rights Institute to argue "aggressively" that the rest of the states, as well as Congress, should abolish all race and sex preferences in hiring, contracting and college admissions.

The founders of the institute, to be financed by individuals and foundations, said the new national organization would have a "strong presence" in Washington and in every state where opponents of preferences ask for help.

But they were careful not to predict quick victories, given recent reports of race and sex discrimination in some major U.S. corporations and also given that supporters of affirmative action, particularly women's groups, have vowed to fight back on the hustings and in the courts.

Still, Ward Connerly, the black Sacramento businessman who led the Proposition 209 fight and now leads the new institute, reported Wednesday that a dozen or so states, among them Colorado, Florida, Oregon and Washington, had indicated they might like help in putting anti-affirmative action propositions on the ballot or pressuring legislatures to pass anti-affirmative action laws.

Proposition 209 has been put on hold by a federal judge, pending a review of its Constitutionality, but Connerly said that had not deterred opponents of affirmative action in other states.

As for the outlook for Congressional action, Connerly opined that it was better now than in 1996, an election year in which many Capitol Hill legislators chose not to grapple with the touchy issue.

Polls indicate a large number of Americans oppose affirmative action programs. But many others, among them President Clinton, take a "mend-it-don't-end-it" approach, arguing that although there are shortcomings and excesses, such as quotas, the concept is worth saving.

"There is no public policy which has greater potential to rip the fabric of American democracy than affirmative action, as it has evolved," Connerly said. "Every citizen should have an equal chance at the starting line of life's race. But there should not be a guaranteed outcome in the race. If you discriminate for someone, you discriminate against someone else."

Besides Connerly, among the institute's leading founders and advisers are Thomas L. Rhodes, the president of the National Review, the conservative magazine; Clint Bolick, director of litigation for the Institute for Justice, and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, both organizations that push conservative causes; and state Sen. Quentin Kopp of San Francisco, an Independent who is one of Sacramento's most outspoken legislative mavericks.

Connerly predicted that his announcement Wednesday would draw sharp criticism, saying that "some people in this country think they have a lock on what is right and that all the rest of us are morally wrong." And, in fact, the criticism was not long in coming.

First to attack was state Assemblyman Kevin Murray of Los Angeles, the chairman of the California Legislative Black Caucus, who called Connerly "despicable" and "indecent." Then, noting that the announcement of the institute's founding had been scheduled, by Connerly's admission, for the Jan. 15 birthdate of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Murray asserted:

"To announce on Dr. King's birthday that he is setting out to destroy the civil rights advances Dr. King fought and died for is callous and utterly disrespectful of Dr. King's memory and accomplishments."

In Washington, Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a major civil rights group, said that the new institute should not hold out much hope for success beyond California, especially on Capitol Hill.

"That group won't get very high priority here," he said, "particularly after the discrimination that has recently been turned up at places like Texaco and the like."

Elizabeth Toledo, the president of the California branch of the National Organization for Women and a former member of that group's national board, offered a similar judgment.

"It won't work," she said. "Women are determined to push back."

Connerly said he chose King's birthdate for the announcement because the practice of extending preferences on the basis of race and sex constituted reverse discrimination and thus was a direct affront to King's dream of a color-blind America.

Then he speculated on whether King would support preferences, were he alive today.

"He very well might," Connerly concluded. "But if he did and were sitting here in front of me, I'd go right up to him and ask him why and how he could justify that support given his earlier statements about a color-blind America. We'd have a dialogue. I don't shy away."

According to Connerly, the institute will seek funding from individuals and foundations but expects few contributions from businesses and other organizations.

"They say they oppose preferences but they turn to jelly when they come face-to-face with having to choose up sides on such a hot topic," he said. "But we expect to have enough money to go national in any case."

Connerly conceded in his announcement and in a press conference and a series of press interviews that followed that race and sex discrimination was still very much a problem in the United States. But he argued that preferences were not the right solution.

Rather, he said, the nation should enforce existing anti-discrimination laws and adopt programs and policies that reach out to people, all people, who are economically and socially disadvantaged.

"Yes, we at the institute are against solving the nation's discrimination problems with race and sex preferences," he said. "But at the same time were are nevertheless solution-oriented and favor steps that would reach out to every individual in need of help, not just a particular class or classes. Our Constitution protects every individual, not every group. It's a difficult position that we take, but it's the right position."