"Affirmative action era is over, longtime foe says"
Richard Friedman
rdfrdman at umich.edu
Mon Nov 27 06:06:09 PST 2006
Connerly was indeed invited to help the effort in Michigan; according
to Jennifer Gratz, she called him up the day after the Supreme Court decision.
Rich
At 02:34 AM 11/27/2006, Bob Sheridan wrote:
>This is not an issue that "picks up steam" all by its
>lonesome. Ward Connerly brought his California initiative in
>response to the racial politics in admissions he saw as a UC Regent,
>which he describes in his book. He's a successful businessman and
>friend of then Gov. Pete Wilson. Connerly's success in California
>brought him next to Oregon, either by invitation or on his own
>initiative, I forget which. He may have been invited to lend his
>leadership to the Michigan effort.
>rs
>sfls
>
>Ilya Somin wrote:
>>A few quick points:
>>
>>1. I cannot in this brief post analyze all of the states mentioned
>>by Rich. I suspect, however, that the reasons why they have not
>>yet had anti-AA initiatives are a combination of the following:
>>
>>A. Many of them have state universities less prestigious and less
>>selective than California and Michigan. Surely this is true, for
>>example, of Oklahoma, Missouri, etc.
>>
>>B. These schools and their policies are less visible in the
>>national media (which many people follow in preference to local media).
>>
>>C. Several of these states (e.g. - Arizona) have very small
>>African-American populations and so don't engage in much AA on
>>their behalf (since state universities usually target the
>>percentage of a minority group in the state population). AA
>>preferences for Hispanics tend to be smaller and (at least until
>>recently) less politically visible than preferences for African-Americans.
>>
>>D. Ward Connerly and other national AA advocates have less interest
>>in these states than they do in Michigan, California and other more
>>prominent and visible states.
>>
>>2. Most public opinion research on opposition to AA shows that it
>>is not primarily caused by immediate self-interest (that is - white
>>people who perceive themselves as especially likely to be
>>disadvantaged by AA do not tend to oppose it more than do other
>>whites). Thus, I suspect that political visibility of the state's
>>AA preferences is the key variable and that in turn varies with the
>>prestige of the state's public university.
>>3. Legally speaking, Grutter did not require any university to
>>practice AA. It merely said that some forms of AA are
>>constitutionally permissible if states want to enact them. By
>>contrast, Goodridge did require the state of Massachusetts to
>>endorse gay marriage. Gay marriage opponents in other states began
>>to worry that the same thing might happen in their states. These
>>fears were in most cases greatly overblown, but the average voter
>>is not very good at estimating what types of legal developments are
>>actually likely. By contrast, Grutter, with its mixed outcome
>>(especially paired with Gratz) and lack of an imposed requirement,
>>did not stoke as much fear in opponents as Goodridge did.
>>4. Rich may be right that the MCRI will be copied in many other
>>states. At the same time, similar predictions were made 10 years
>>ago when Prop 209 passed in California, yet those predictions were
>>(mostly) not fulfilled. Are things different this time around?
>>We'll just have to see.
>>
>>Ilya Somin
>>Assistant Professor of Law
>>George Mason University School of Law
>>3301 Fairfax Dr.
>>Arlington, VA 22201
>>ph: 703-993-8069
>>fax: 703-993-8202
>>e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
>>Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
>>SSRN Page: http://ssrn.com/author=333339
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Richard Friedman <rdfrdman at umich.edu>
>>Date: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:00 am
>>Subject: Re: "Affirmative action era is over, longtime foe says"
>>
>>
>>>Ilya's points may explain why the growth of this movement has been
>>>relatively slow to date. We'll see whether it now begins to pick
>>>up steam, and my sense is that when 58% of the voters of a state
>>>like Michigan oppose plans like ours then that gives others --
>>>including legislators -- plenty of political cover to push in
>>>their own states for the same result. My guess is that in10 years
>>>the landscape will be very different from what it is now.
>>>
>>>States with constitutional initiative include, among others,
>>>Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio,
>>>Oklahoma, and Oregon. I will happily assume that the leading
>>>public university in each of these states is less prestigious and
>>>less selective than the University of Michigan, but I would guess
>>>that with respect to each, or at least most, of them there are
>>>plenty of white kids who really want to get into that university,
>>>because it is the best one within their reach, don't get in, and
>>>believe that they were near the line and that but for affirmative
>>>action they would have had a better chance. And, by the way, that
>>>58% in Michigan includes a lot of folks who probably never gave a
>>>serious thought to U of M.
>>>
>>>And yes, I know that the reaction to Goodridge has to date been
>>>more extensive than the reaction to Grutter, but that really
>>>restates the question. The fact is that Grutter established rules
>>>that govern everybody nationwide, and one has to work pretty hard
>>>(I think) to see how a married couple in the midwest is threatened
>>>by a decision allowing same-sex couples in Massachusetts to marry.
>>>
>>>Rich
>>>
>>>At 11:09 PM 11/26/2006, Ilya Somin wrote:
>>>
>>>>These are all worthwhile points, but I have a few disagreements.
>>>>
>>>>1. Political payoffs.
>>>>
>>>>In practice, opposing affirmative action has not proven to be a
>>>>political goldmine for conservative politicians, at least not in
>>>the
>>>>last 15 years or so. I suspect that the danger of being tarred as
>>>a
>>>>racist by the press, if that is your main issue is a part of it,
>>>as
>>>>also is the fact that polls show that the majority of people have
>>>>positive associations with the term "affirmative action" (they
>>>>don't like the term "racial preferences," which is the wording
>>>used
>>>>in Prop 209 and the MCRI). It's possible that conservative
>>>>politicians are simply missing out on a valuable political
>>>>opportunity, but I suspect that they are making rational
>>>>calculations when they choose not to emphasize the issue. This
>>>may
>>>>explain why anti-AA politics has mostly taken the form of
>>>referenda
>>>>rather than legislation.
>>>>
>>>>2. I agree that many states have at least one somewhat selective
>>>>public university. But in those states where the selectivity and
>>>>prestige of the state university are relatively low, any AA
>>>policies
>>>>that they have are likely to be of lower saliency than in
>>>Michigan
>>>>or CA. It is no accident, to my mind, that the biggest AA fights
>>>>have been concentrated in states with high-prestige state
>>>>universities (Texas, CA, Michigan, Washington, etc.). There are
>>>only
>>>>about 6-8 states that have both high-prestige state universities
>>>and
>>>>referendum processes. And anti-AA referenda have already passed
>>>in a
>>>>significant proportion of them.
>>>>
>>>>3. There are indeed people who care deeply about AA. But Rich is
>>>>probably right to suppose that they are more common in university
>>>>settings and - I suspect - in states with high-prestige public
>>>universities.>
>>>
>>>>4. I'm not convinced that Grutter is higher-saliency than
>>>Goodridge.
>>>>Some 25-30 states have enacted anti-gay marriage amendments in
>>>just
>>>>the 3 years since Goodridge. Only 3-4 have enacted anti-AA
>>>>initiatives in the 10 years since Hopwood and Prop 209. Part of
>>>the
>>>>explanation is that support for gay marriage is weaker than
>>>support
>>>>for AA. But part of it is that the opposition to gay marriage is
>>>>stronger than opposition to AA and perhaps more widely and deeply
>>>>felt (especially when we take into account the many people who
>>>>support "affirmative action" even though they oppose "racial
>>>preferences").>
>>>
>>>>Ilya Somin
>>>>Assistant Professor of Law
>>>>George Mason University School of Law
>>>>3301 Fairfax Dr.
>>>>Arlington, VA 22201
>>>>ph: 703-993-8069
>>>>fax: 703-993-8202
>>>>e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
>>>>Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
>>>>SSRN Page: http://ssrn.com/author=333339
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Richard D. Friedman" <rdfrdman at umich.edu>
>>>>Date: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:57 pm
>>>>Subject: Re: "Affirmative action era is over, longtime foe says"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm persuaded in part, but only in part, by Ilya's explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Yes, the collective action problems are quite large. But in
>>>>>states that do have the initiative, the problems seem to be
>>>>>overcome
>>>>>with some regularity. This issue seems to pose an opportunity for
>>>>>an
>>>>>ambitious right-wing political aspirant.
>>>>>
>>>>>2. My sense is that Ilya is right that higher education is the
>>>>>more
>>>>>salient area for most voters, but it seems to me that most
>>>states -
>>>
>>>>>-
>>>>>a lot of states at least -- have at least one major public
>>>>>university
>>>>>that is at least somewhat selective, and if they've been following
>>>>>policies like our Grutter-approved one, then the issue would be
>>>>>raised continuously.
>>>>>
>>>>>3. Well, if 24 states don't allow legislation or constitutional
>>>>>amendments by initiative, that explains the lack of petition
>>>>>drives
>>>>>in about half the states -- but it still leaves open the
>>>>>possibility
>>>>>of such drives in the other half, and raises the alternative
>>>>>question: On an issue that seems to be a strong vote-getter
>>>>>(Michigan is a pretty blue state, after all, and despite the
>>>>>opposition of most of the elites in the state, MCRI passed
>>>>>handily),
>>>>>why are more legislatures not jumping in? (Or will they be doing
>>>>>so
>>>>>soon enough?)
>>>>>
>>>>>4. My sense -- maybe distorted by being in a university
>>>setting --
>>>
>>>>>is that a lot of people do get emotionally involved on the subject
>>>>>of
>>>>>affirmative action, and though Grutter may have been particularly
>>>>>salient in Michigan, it was one of the most closely watched
>>>>>decisions
>>>>>by the US Supreme Court in decades and so a lot more salient
>>>>>throughout the nation than, say, Goodridge was outside
>>>Massachusetts.> >
>>>
>>>>>So I remain rather perplexed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Rich Friedman
>>>>>
>>>>>At 09:55 PM 11/26/2006, Ilya Somin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I think there may be several explanations:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. There are significant collective action costs to
>>>organizing an
>>>
>>>>>>initiative drive like this. Connerley has a preexisting
>>>>>>
>>>>>organization
>>>>>
>>>>>>that is, to some extent, portable - thus cutting down on
>>>those costs.
>>>
>>>>>>2. In the many states that don't have prestigious public
>>>>>>universities, AA in higher education is not a big issue. It seems
>>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>>be the higher education AA rather than the less publicly
>>>>>>
>>>>>noticable
>>>>>
>>>>>>AA in government contracting that drives the politics of these
>>>>>>
>>>>>issues.>
>>>>>
>>>>>>3. 24 states don't have lawmaking by referendum. In those states,
>>>>>>it's quite understandable taht there hasn't been an
>>>equivalent of
>>>
>>>>>>Prop 209 or the MCRI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>4. Most people don't give much thought to AA most of the
>>>time. In
>>>
>>>>>>Michigan, the MCRI probably would not have happened were it not
>>>>>>
>>>>>for
>>>>>
>>>>>>the galvanizing effect of the Gratz/Grutter litigation. Most
>>>>>>
>>>>>other
>>>>>
>>>>>>states haven't had a similar high-profile event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>IN sum, a Prop 209-like movement is only likely in states
>>>that 1)
>>>
>>>>>>have initiative processes, 2) have selective, prestigious public
>>>>>>universities, and 3) have some galvanizing event that focuses
>>>>>>
>>>>>public
>>>>>
>>>>>>attention on the issue. It's not surprising, I think, that the
>>>>>>
>>>>>vast
>>>>>
>>>>>>majority of states don't fall into this category.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ilya Somin
>>>>>>Assistant Professor of Law
>>>>>>George Mason University School of Law
>>>>>>3301 Fairfax Dr.
>>>>>>Arlington, VA 22201
>>>>>>ph: 703-993-8069
>>>>>>fax: 703-993-8202
>>>>>>e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
>>>>>>Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
>>>>>>SSRN Page: http://ssrn.com/author=333339
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand why Ward Connerly is a big asset to this movement,
>>>>>>
>>>>>but
>>>>>
>>>>>>can someone explain why he seems to be so crucial? It
>>>seems to
>>>
>>>>>me
>>>>>
>>>>>>that in each state there must be plenty of people who would like
>>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>>see similar measures adopted and who have sufficient
>>>>>>
>>>>>organizational
>>>>>
>>>>>>and political skills to get the ball rolling. Frankly -- as one
>>>>>>
>>>>>who
>>>>>
>>>>>>voted in favor of the policy upheld in Grutter and opposed the
>>>>>>Michigan amendment -- I'm surprised that there isn't momentum to
>>>>>>follow the same path in 47 states.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich Friedman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 04:33 PM 11/26/2006, Rick Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From today's
>>>>>>><http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me->
>>>>connerly26nov26,0,5468311.story?coll=la-home-local>LA
>>>>
>>>>>>>Times. Here is an excerpt:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As Ward Connerly sees it, the demise of affirmative action in
>>>>>>>America is fast approaching.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Buoyed by the victory this month of the Michigan ballot measure
>>>>>>>banning racial preferences in public education and hiring, the
>>>>>>>former University of California regent is ready to take his
>>>>>>>
>>>>>crusade
>>>>>
>>>>>>>to the rest of the nation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Connerly talks enthusiastically of an "anti-affirmative action
>>>>>>>
>>>>>wave
>>>>>
>>>>>>>washing over America" that will wipe out the race-based
>>>>>>>
>>>>>preferences
>>>>>
>>>>>>>used for decades to help African Americans, Latinos and other
>>>>>>>disadvantaged ethnic groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"I think the end is at hand for affirmative action as we know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>it," he says.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>For his next target, the conservative activist is considering
>>>>>>>sponsoring a ballot measure in one or more states, including
>>>>>>>Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Missouri or South Dakota. "We
>>>>>>>
>>>>>don't
>>>>>
>>>>>>>have to go to every state if we can get a critical mass of seven
>>>>>>>
>>>>>or
>>>>>
>>>>>>>eight states," he says.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I hope he adds Nebraska to the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cheers, Rick Duncan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rick Duncan
>>>>>>>Welpton Professor of Law
>>>>>>>University of Nebraska College of Law
>>>>>>>Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt
>>>>>>>God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then
>>>>>>>start doubting His existence." --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge
>>>>>>>
>>>>>of Conscience)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>of
>>>>>
>>>>>>>the best is the worst." -- Id.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Everyone is raving about
>>>>>>>
>>>>><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=45083/*http://advision.webevents.yah
>>>>> >>> oo.com/mailbeta>the
>>>>
>>>>>>>all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>viewed
>>>>>
>>>>>>>as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
>>>>>>>that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>members
>>>>>
>>>>>>>can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
>>>>>>
>>>>>viewed
>>>>>
>>>>>>as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
>>>>>>
>>>>>that
>>>>>
>>>>>>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
>>>>>>
>>>>>can
>>>>>
>>>>>>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>>>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
>>as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
>>that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
>>can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list