Anderson@Large

File This Under: Not Surprised

Ward Connerly, the race hustler who is paid to oppose affirmative action, is under investigation for allegedly using his nonprofit to line his own pockets to the tune of between $1.2 million and $1.5 million each year.

The New York Times reports:

Ward Connerly, the black businessman who has been the face of the movement to end affirmative action for nearly two decades, is facing accusations from a prominent former ally that he has mismanaged — and exploited for his own benefit — donations to that cause made by fellow conservatives.

Moreover, a group Mr. Connerly founded to advance government policies that are race and gender neutral, the Sacramento-based American Civil Rights Institute, is under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and by the attorney general of California, according to documents and interviews.

Mr. Connerly has faced accusations of profiteering before, as supporters of affirmative action highlighted his salary in an effort to discredit his cause. But this time, the allegations are more detailed and come from another significant movement figure: Jennifer Gratz, the named plaintiff in a landmark 2003 Supreme Court case that struck down a race-based admissions policy at the University of Michigan.

After she won that case, Mr. Connerly hired Ms. Gratz to conduct research and run campaigns supporting anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives. She resigned last September and, through her lawyer, sent the group’s board a five-page letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Time.

Gratz probably knows nothing about “race music,” but she is affirming a truism: Don't start me to talking.

Elena Kagan and the Chair

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Elena Kagan’s nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is underway.

Day One was dominated by opening statements and partisan bickering.

Although it’s been more than two months since Kagan’s nomination was announced, 81 percent of Americans don’t know who she is, according to a C-SPAN survey.

The National Bar Association and some civil rights groups want to know more about Kagan’s stances on civil rights, diversity and racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

As far as I know, not one black woman has endorsed her nomination.

Kagan’s black male supporters, including Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree Jr., point to the faculty chair she assumed during her tenure as dean of Harvard Law School as evidence of her commitment to racial equality.

For many African Americans, that’s pretty thin gruel on which to endorse a lifetime appointment to one of these chairs.

The Congressional Black Caucus has asked Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to pose the following questions to Kagan:

1. In a 1997 memorandum to President Clinton, you supported reducing the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine to 10:1. Do you support eliminating the sentencing disparity?
2. In a case pending before the Supreme Court in 1997, Piscataway Bd. Of Education v. Taxman, in which a school district used its affirmative action policy to lay off a white teacher instead of a black teacher with the same seniority, the then Solicitor General wrote a memo that suggested filing a brief arguing that the teacher should not have been laid off in this particular case, and that if the court adopted this position, it would not have to address whether Title VII “always precludes non-remedial affirmative action.” You wrote on that memo, “I think this is exactly the right position – as a legal matter, as a policy matter, and as a political matter.” Are race-based remedies ever permissible? If left to you alone, would you have applied the “mend it, don’t end it” affirmative action policy to race-neutral remedies only?
3. Please explain why you apparently opposed the formation of a commission on race by President Clinton during his second term.
4. During your tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School, the law school faculty grew by almost 50%, with the hiring of 43 full-time faculty, including 32 tenured or tenure track. Of those 32, please explain why only one minority, an Asian American, and only seven women were hired, and, of the 11 non-tenure track faculty, why only three minorities – two black and one Indian – and only two women were hired.
5. While Dean, you apparently offered faculty positions to several minority candidates who turned down the offers. How many were African American?

Black folks will be listening to her responses.

Affirmative Action Foe Back At It

As Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s history-making campaigns continue, a blast from the past is making news. Ward Connerly is rolling out plans for a different kind of “Super Tuesday.”

Connerly is gearing up to place an anti-affirmative action initiative on the November ballot in battleground states, including Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Nevada. Though white women have been its primary beneficiaries, affirmative action is seen as a “test” for Obama.

Notre Dame Prof. Darren Davis told Newsweek:

Basically, on every racial issue Barack Obama is walking the tightrope. The more he supports traditional black issues like affirmative action, the more that will eat into his white base of support.

If history is any guide, the ballot measure will boost turnout among voters who are not likely to vote for the Democratic nominee, whether it’s Obama or Clinton. In 2004, an anti-affirmative action ballot initiative helped George Bush narrowly defeat John Kerry in Michigan.

Connerly, an old-school “post-racial” political hack, is setting traps for Democrats on their hoped-for road to victory in the general election.

Women of Color

I’m off to Harrisburg, Pa., for the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education Women of Color Summit. Enjoy your weekend!

Say It Ain't So, Joe

Within moments of being defeated by political newcomer Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary, Sen. Joe Lieberman vowed that he will remain in the race and run for reelection as an independent.   Yeah, whatever.

Lieberman’s loss should be a wake-up call to those Democrats who, in stark contrast to members of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, try to have it both ways.  You know, they voted for the Iraq war resolution until polls (and here) persuaded them they should have voted against it.

Or in the case of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, simply engage in some political theater and then claim the high ground.

Too bad Mzz Hillary, an "Iraq war enabler," doesn’t have a strong challenger who can knock her on her off her high horse.

Sealed with a Kiss

                         
      

                  

      

   
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman’s embrace of President Bush and his Iraq misadventure, has driven Democrats in the Nutmeg State, well, nuts.  Polls (and here) show that Lieberman will likely be defeated by his challenger, Ned Lamont, in tomorrow’s primary election.

Lieberman’s fulsome support of the Iraq madness is reason enough to give him the kiss-off.  When you throw in his involvement in the Terry Schiavo fiasco (and here) and contempt for affirmative action (and here), his mo-joe definitely isn’t working.

My beef with Lieberman stems from his unilateral disarmament during the Florida recount.  In the documentary that I wrote and produced, I tell how Lieberman caved on national TV and said disputed military ballots should be given the “benefit of the doubt.”  The double standard led to thousands of ballots cast by black voters being tossed while similarly flawed military ballots were counted.

Lieberman’s sorry performance was the dénouement in the recount battle.  Clearly, his fate should have long since been sealed.

If you would like to drop a dime on Lieberman for dropping the ball, click here.