Colorado Misrepresentation Mimics Michigan Misrepresentation

Diane Carman is a columnist for the Denver Post. The Denver Post is a liberal newspaper. Colorado is facing a Michigan-like initiative barring racial preferences. Thus a recent column by Diane Carman recycles all the innuendoes, misrepresentations, and outright lies that her ideological colleagues in Michigan, in and out of the press, attempted, with a stunning lack of success, to use to defeat the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

I wish it were not that simple, but it is.

Speaking of the campaign to end race and ethnic preferences, she writes, as they all do,

Their goal is to end affirmative action, though they rarely say it that plainly. And if their tactics in Michigan are any indication, a wave of voter fraud could be headed our way.

Now, one can disagree with the goals of the anti-preference campaign, but one can’t reasonably say that those goals aren’t stated with pristine clairity. As the ballot language in Michigan was summarized on the ballot, MCRI was a proposal

TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES

What part of that does Ms. Carman not understand? What part does she think Colorado voters will not understand? What here is misleading?

And what does she mean by “voter fraud”? Apparently, telling voters that a civil rights measure is a civil rights measure:

Ruthie Stevenson, president of the Macomb County chapter of the Michigan NAACP, said she was approached by a circulator who said the measure would “make civil rights fairer for everybody….”

Even the mayor of Kalamazoo, Hanna McKinney, testified that she was misled and would never have signed the petition if she had known it supported a ban on affirmative action.

Whatever prospective petition-signers were told by signature gatherers, the language of the ballot proposal was clearly written on the petitions and, more to the point, it was clearly written on the ballots themselves, and it fatally undermines the credibility of those making this “fraud” argument to claim, as they implicitly must, that the 58% of the voters in Michigan who voted to end race preferences didn’t know what they were doing.

Although Ms. Carman facilely repeats fraud charges that were levied in Michigan, there is no indication in her column that she considered, or even read, the lengthy rebuttal of those charges released by MCRI.

Unfortunately, two federal courts have extended the life span of some of these charges by seeming to give them some credibility, even as they both dismissed the lawsuit based on them. Mychal Massie makes mincemeat of these judicial kowtows to political correctness here. (Note that the link in Massie’s article to the MCRI rebuttal of the fraud charges is, as of this writing, incorrect. Use the one above.)

If anyone should cite the comments in these opinions as proof of anything, you should reply that you’re surprised to hear such faith that everything federal judges say in their opinions is correct. Somehow you’d missed that same faithful regard for everything Chief Justice Roberts just wrote in barring racial school assignments by race.

ADDENDUM

Since Ms. Carman appears to regard everything in court opinions as scripture, she should have taken a look at the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in its decision refusing to strike the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative from the ballot because of the allegations that some of signature gatherers committed “fraud” by describing the proposal to ban racial preferences as a civil rights measure. (See here and here.)

As I noted here, Justice Stephen Markman’s opinion was eloquent. Even “[a]ssuming the accuracy of everything set forth” in the allegations, he wrote [which, by the way, I do not],

the signers of these petitions did not sign the oral representations made to them by circulators; rather, they signed written petitions that contained the actual language of the MCRI. This Court does not sit in review of the hundreds of thousands of individual conversations that may have occurred between petition circulators and signers. Rather, it sits in review of the petitions themselves.

….

In carrying out the responsibilities of self-government, “we the people” of Michigan are responsible for our own actions. In particular, when the citizen acts in what is essentially a legislative capacity by facilitating the enactment of a constitutional amendment, he cannot blame others when he signs a petition without knowing what it says. It is not to excuse misrepresentations, when they occur, to recognize nonetheless that it is the citizen’s duty to inform himself about the substance of a petition before signing it, precisely in order to combat potential misrepresentations.

A necessary assumption of the petition process must be that the signer has undertaken to read and understand the petition. Otherwise, this process would be subject to perpetual collateral attack, and the judiciary would be required to undertake determinations for which there are no practical legal standards and which essentially concern matters of political dispute.

Michigan law required the gathering of 317,500 signatures. 508,000 were submitted to the Secretary of State. Surely the vast majority of these citizens read the petitions and knew what they were signing, but even if they did not the voters who went to the polls in November 2006 and voted overwhelming to ban racial, ethnic, and gender preferences by the state were voting on the clear language on the ballot.

Ms. Carman and her like-minded friends would like to deny the citizens of Colorado that opportunity.

Say What? (13)

  1. Shouting Thomas September 5, 2007 at 10:42 am | | Reply

    Diane Carman is a member of one of the classes that are rewarded by the racial and sexual quotas.

    So, of course, she wants to maintain the quotas.

    She’s greedy. She doesn’t want to have to compete against white, heterosexual men.

    What’s new?

  2. Linda Seebach September 6, 2007 at 12:29 pm | | Reply

    It is correct to say that The Denver Post is a “liberal” newspaper, if one compares its editorial positions with those of its JOA partner, the Rocky Mountain News, where I was an editorial writer from 1997 until I retired in July.

    However, this has nothing at all to do with the personal opinions of Dianne Carman, who is a news columnist and not a member of the editorial page staff. The edit page has no authority over what she writes (or conversely). The Post has at least one conservative news columnist, David Harsanyi, while the Rocky, which is editorially conservative as these things go, has three news columnists, two of whom are as stridently left-wing as Carman.

    And I bet that Carman, if asked, would vehemently deny that she had ever benefited from the kind of programs she is now defending. She might even be right about that, but Shouting Thomas would have no way of knowing and should address her arguments rather than attacking her motives. Fortunately, that’s not hard.

  3. John Rosenberg September 6, 2007 at 5:41 pm | | Reply

    Linda Seebach, as usual, is perceptive and profound. She has commented here before, and now that she’s retired I hope she’ll have the opportunity, and the inclination, to do so more often.

    Even though she is no doubt correct about the connection, or lack of one, between the Denver Post’s columnists and its editorial pages, and even though I wholeheartedly agree that arguments should be responded to on their merits rather than the supposed motives of those who make them, I must confess that I’ve often wondered if there weren’t at least a tiny bit of at least an appearance of conflict of interest in columnists advocating measures from which they personally benefit.

    For example, if Diane Carman’s family were peanut farmers, wouldn’t newspapers running a column by her opposing a measure that would deny subsidies to peanut farmers expect her to acknowledge her personal interest in the matter?

    That acknowledgment may be moot here; most readers presumably know Diane Carman is a woman and that women receive the preferences that she is defending. Still, since she and like-minded women and minority columnists defend preferences to the groups to which they belong as Good Things, could they themselves really have a principled objection to the newspapers running their columns acknowledging/disclaiming that “Ms./Mr. X was/was not hired under this newspaper’s affirmative action policy”?

  4. FreeMan September 6, 2007 at 8:22 pm | | Reply

    The ? is – is the voter “misrepresentation” in Colorado consistent with the voter misrepresentation of Black Afrikan Wardell connerly’s “organization” in Washington State 1998 & Michigan in 2006?

    The ? is – is the US a sexist nation against Women & a racist nation against People of Color so that qualified Women & People of Color need Affirmative Action to have an opportunity to share their talents with the US?

    Deception – “misrepresentation” implies negligence – history demonstrates that Black Afrikan Wardell Connerly’s “organization” intentionally lied to voters about the Affirmative Action ban

  5. John Rosenberg September 6, 2007 at 9:52 pm | | Reply

    The ? is – is the voter “misrepresentation” in Colorado consistent with the voter misrepresentation of Black Afrikan Wardell connerly’s “organization” in Washington State 1998 & Michigan in 2006?

    What was the “misrepresentation”? Simply charging it, without giving examples, is pure rant.

    The ? is – is the US a sexist nation against Women & a racist nation against People of Color so that qualified Women & People of Color need Affirmative Action to have an opportunity to share their talents with the US?

    If that is the question, the answer is easy: No. The US is not a sexist/racist nation. There are of course continuing acts of discrimination, and they are illegal. But the entire nation cannot be indicted and convicted and a “remedy” of privleged, preferential treatment be awarded to everyone with a dark skin or certain specified body parts.

    Deception – “misrepresentation” implies negligence…

    This is pure gobbledygook. Don’t know what, if anything, it means.

    … history demonstrates that Black Afrikan Wardell Connerly’s “organization” intentionally lied to voters about the Affirmative Action ban

    “History” doesn’t demonstrate anything; historians do. You’ve give no evidence of lies, but less intentional lies. Again, pure rant.

    I’ll no longer post pure rant.

  6. Cobra September 7, 2007 at 1:29 am | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”The US is not a sexist/racist nation.”

    You must’ve had a software glitch there, John. Darned CGI bins! Here, let me help you out.

    Cobra Argument #1 is that “America IS a racist and sexist nation, which is why we need Affirmative Action programs.”

    John writes:

    >>>”There are of course continuing acts of discrimination, and they are illegal.”

    See what I mean? You’re using euphemisms that render your above statement contradictory. If an entity engages in “continuing acts of discrimination”, by definition, that entity is “discriminatory.”

    Legality is irrelevant because it’s not “illegal” to be racist or sexist, and racist and sexist practices by an entity bound by historically RECENT legislation only truly matter in America if the entity is caught and succesfully adjudicated.

    That often has more to do with the amount of “adjudication” one can afford, and/or the will of the executive branch of said entity to enforce anti-discrimiation laws, than any lofty notions of equality.

    John writes:

    >>>”History” doesn’t demonstrate anything; historians do.”

    We don’t really need “historians” to tell us about American Racism and sexism. The Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, legislations by local, state and federal governments, and accounts of inexcusably abominable discriminations and attrocities chronicled by journalists and researchers.

    John writes:

    >>>”But the entire nation cannot be indicted and convicted and a “remedy” of privleged, preferential treatment be awarded to everyone with a dark skin or certain specified body parts.”

    Do you deny the existance of the WMPS?

    –Cobra

  7. Jennnifer Gratz September 7, 2007 at 2:16 am | | Reply

    John,

    It’s rare that we disagree, but I have to disagree with this statement: “most readers presumably know Diane Carman is a woman and that women receive the preferences that she is defending” (not that we know Diane is a woman, but that women automatically receive preferences.)

    Recent discussions to give preferences to men in college admissions in order to keep the “proper balance” on campus is yet another indication that “diversity” is nothing more than having the right balance of different races and genders. Therefore, the groups who “benefit” from preferences can be changed at any time.

    I also have to say that this is one of the reasons why I can’t stand preferences … I wouldn’t want anyone to look at a position I’m in and think “she’s in that position because a woman was needed in order to promote “diversity” or bring the right “balance.” I would never want to be offered an interview, a position, or a promotion for that reason. And the fact that preferences exist automatically allow people to question qualifications of individuals who happen to belong to the preferred group of the moment.

    Jen

  8. Shouting Thomas September 7, 2007 at 10:14 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    If American society is just plain racist, and a sort of demented hatred of dark skin is the explanation for everything, please explain why:

    1. I’ve observed, literally, dozens of Asian Indians fresh off the boat landing jobs as programmers, pulling down six figure incomes and buying homes throughout New Jersey. Many of these people are darker skinned than American blacks.

    2. I’ve observed scores of Filipinos, also fresh off the boat, landing jobs as nurses, nurse practitioners and LPNs, also drawing very significant incomes and buying very nice homes throughout New Jersey. Many, if not most, of these Filipinos come from backgrounds of extreme poverty. And, of course, their skin color is dark.

    How is it that skin color doesn’t seem to induce the deep seated malice of those evil whites in these instances? I’ve observed absolutely no resistance in white communities in New Jersey to the arrival of these Indian and Filipino immigrants.

    Both Indian and Filipino society stress personal responsibility, family duty, religious observation and responsible fatherhood. Neither culture has any tolerance for criminal behavior.

    Why doesn’t the white American hatred of dark skin cause these people to fail?

  9. FreeMan September 7, 2007 at 10:45 am | | Reply

    The blogger quoted it as “misrepresentation” – I call it – Voter Fraud – as documented by the Michigan Dept of Civil Rights & the US Federal Court found Black Afrikan Wardell Connerly’s “organization” intentionally lied to US citizens – voters in Michigan that the Affirmative Action ban would increase Affirmative Action for People of Color

    the blogger writes like an intelligent person a Phd candidate- yet can not find the definition between negligence & intentional –

    Negligence is wrong because of lack of proper care

    Intentional is purposeful conduct – voter fraud by Black Afrikan Wardell Connerly’s “organization” as documented by the Michigan Dept of Civil Rights & US Federal Court

  10. John Rosenberg September 7, 2007 at 2:34 pm | | Reply

    FreePerson – (Aren’t you aware that calling yourself by the sexist term FreeMAN is sexism against all women, including women of color?)

    This argument about voter fraud is even wackier than most things BAMN and friends shout about. First, 508,000 signatures were gathered when only about 317,000 were required. All that has been “documented” is that signature gatherers told prospective signers that MCRI would protect civil rights and make things fairer for everyone (as the BAMN witness herself stated), that a signature gatherer or two said it would not outlaw affirmative action. Both those assertions are true. If one or two signature gatherers told some prospective signers something that was incorrect about the effect of MCRI, it’s legally irrelevant: people weren’t signing verbal assertions, they were given printed copies of the proposal itself, and the proposal is crystal clear. Even if all the allegations are true, it would affect no more than a handful of signatures, far fewer than enough to disqualify the measure from the ballot. In any event, the comments of the signature gatherers have nothing to do with the overwheming support of Prop. 2 (58% for; 42% against) on the ballot itself. Finally, if people can’t read, they shouldn’t sign petitions.

  11. Cobra September 7, 2007 at 7:32 pm | | Reply

    Jennifer Gratz writes:

    >>>”I also have to say that this is one of the reasons why I can’t stand preferences … I wouldn’t want anyone to look at a position I’m in and think “she’s in that position because a woman was needed in order to promote “diversity” or bring the right “balance.” I would never want to be offered an interview, a position, or a promotion for that reason. And the fact that preferences exist automatically allow people to question qualifications of individuals who happen to belong to the preferred group of the moment. ”

    The insane irony of this discussion is that YOU, Jennifer Gratz–of all the people on God’s green earth…after the national firestorm you helped ignite–STILL actually CARE about what other people think of you.

    I find it hilarious.

    Don’t you get it yet?

    Don’t you realize that you’re a woman, and the second modifier of the phrase WMPS, is “Male?”

    Don’t you realize that your credentials and qualifications will OFTEN be under “question” because YOU, just like ME, aren’t a White Male?

    Don’t you realize that no matter how viciously you attack Affirmative-Action, and how successful you are at destroying it–YOU, just like ME, will more than likely face wage gaps and promotional glass ceilings in the WMPS?

    You know, upon second reflection…I think you do “get it.” You know how the system works.

    You know the fix is in.

    You’ve just made the calculation to “collaborate” with the WMPS rather than to “confront” it.

    Safe move. You can make alot of money, and I’m sure–like most “outside” supporters of the WMPS–that you’ve made a whole lot of fans among conservative white males.

    Just remember, Ms. Gratz…in sexist America, many of those conservative white males you’ve buddied up to still, and will probably always think of you as “less.”

    –Cobra

  12. David Nieporent September 9, 2007 at 11:57 am | | Reply

    See what I mean? You’re using euphemisms that render your above statement contradictory. If an entity engages in “continuing acts of discrimination”, by definition, that entity is “discriminatory.”

    America is not an “entity.” It is 300,000,000 individuals. If some of those individuals discriminate on the basis of race, that doesn’t make America racist. Just as the fact that some black people commit crimes does not make the black community criminal. If some American white guy is a racist, that means that that guy is a racist, not that whites are racist or that America is racist.

    Do you deny the existance of the WMPS?

    I can’t speak for John, but I do. Indeed, I deny the existence of the “PS.” There is no “Power Structure.” There are individuals who have different amounts of clout, either because they have money, or government office, or a large soapbox. They don’t form some sort of collective “structure.” And if a particular white person has clout, that means that that particular white person has clout; it doesn’t give “whites” some sort of collective clout.

    You can’t stop thinking of people as mere group representatives and not as human beings, can you?

  13. Cobra September 13, 2007 at 7:10 pm | | Reply

    David writes:

    >>>”America is not an “entity.” It is 300,000,000 individuals. If some of those individuals discriminate on the basis of race, that doesn’t make America racist.”

    Well, it’s not just “individuals”. It’s institutional, IMHO, with a history of documentation to support it.

    Moreover, de-emphasizing the influence of individuals will not dilute the overall definition. It only takes ONE worm to make a rotten apple, you know.

    David writes:

    >>>”Indeed, I deny the existence of the “PS.” There is no “Power Structure.” There are individuals who have different amounts of clout, either because they have money, or government office, or a large soapbox. They don’t form some sort of collective “structure.” And if a particular white person has clout, that means that that particular white person has clout; it doesn’t give “whites” some sort of collective clout. ”

    Of course it’s a collective undertaking. It’s how a “nation” is designed. White male landowners got together at the Continental Congress and set up a system that benefitted other white male landowners like themselves. Starting with the Constitution, there have been a plethora of laws, edicts, court verdicts and innumerable non-official practices that served to benefit the SAME GROUP.

    Why you refuse to admit this in the face of history is beyond me.

    –Cobra

Leave a Reply to Cobra Click here to cancel reply.