In California's race to become the first state in the nation to abolish all state-sponsored affirmative action programs which give preferential treatment to minorities and women in areas of education, contracting, and hiring, a single man is leading the crusade against these unjust practices. Because of his skin color, he has become the latest black leader to bear the brunt of criticism from his own community.
Ward Connerly, raised as an orphan in poverty -- now a successful and wealthy land-use consultant in Sacramento -- has eagerly moved to the forefront of the affirmative action debate, asserting that his own achievements are the result of a personal dedication to his ideals and not the product of government mandated racial quotas that undermine the personal achievements of many successful minorities.
Connerly, who takes much pride in his remarkable accomplishments, was recently quoted in The New York Times (April 18) as saying, "Nobody ever gave me any race or sex preferences when I came into the cold world 56 years ago and I made it anyway -- high school, college, my own big business ..."
But for a successful black businessman like Connerly to utter such words that celebrate the beauty of our great democracy and reaffirm the reality of equal opportunity for all, is to step out on a limb and challenge the popular notion that only through racial preferences will blacks in America be granted an equal opportunity to succeed socially, politically, and economically.
As expected, the numerous derogatory remarks directed towards him range from those who claim that "he doesn't want to be black" and "he has no ethnic pride" to those who believe "he's waltzing with [the] enemy." However, there is reason for this great contempt towards leaders such as Connerly and the furious attempt to slander them.
The black conservative has become a nightmare to the die-hard supporters of affirmative action policies, not only because he is living proof that blacks can indeed succeed and prosper in this country based on their own initiative, but also because men like Connerly discredit the notion that white racism is the culprit behind the movement to abolish preferential treatment programs.
With these two significant points in mind, it is no wonder that some of this country's finest black intellectuals and political figures have become the targets of malicious and mean-spirited attacks on the part of both the black community and white liberals. This practice of name calling has been provoked by a number of irrational liberals such as Spike Lee who has been quoted as calling Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "a handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit eating Uncle Tom" or Carl Rowan of the Washington Post who stated that "if you give Thomas a little flour on his face, you'd think you had David Duke." In his book, "The End of Racism," Dinesh D'Souza '83 cites these and other repulsive quotes in an attempt to examine what he calls, "Uncle Tom's Dilemma."
Not only has Justice Thomas received the brunt of much of this indecent criticism, but also other prominent conservative black intellectuals who have denounced race-based preferential treatment such as Thomas Sowell and Glenn Loury have been labeled as "traitors" and "Uncle Toms" -- simply because their message cuts straight to the heart of the matter and leaves those in favor of affirmative action programs with nothing but a seriously flawed rationale.
Unfortunately, rather than re-examining their beliefs through intellectual means and addressing the fact that numerous minority individuals have flourished in the absence of preferential treatment programs, these irrational liberals have resorted to the juvenile practice of name calling and taking direct shots at the character of those such as Connerly, who have created the most substantial obstacle in the path of the affirmative action policies.
What is most disheartening is the fact that the personal attacks on Connerly and other prominent black conservatives have taken on such a strong racial tone because of the inability of the liberals to separate skin color and ethnicity from the political ideology of their opponents. It is truly a shame that in this great country, successful individuals such as Connerly, Thomas, Loury, and Sowell who possess a solid work ethic and take pride in their own achievements are criticized for having no "ethnic pride" or "not wanting to be black" -- as if having "ethnic pride" and being black excludes a work ethic and the freedom to choose one's own political ideology.
