April 15, 2005, 7:56 a.m.
On the Defensive
Quota defenders are having a tough time.

EDITOR'S NOTE:Ward Connerly, one of the nation’s foremost critics of race-based affirmative action, was awarded the Bradley Prize by the Bradley Foundation earlier this year, which recognizes those who preserve and defend Americans ideals of equality, freedom, capitalism and the “the tradition of free representative government and private enterprise.” The following is an expanded version of the acceptance speech he gave on February 16 in Washington, D.C.

When I became a regent of the University of California in 1993, I became a “public official.” And, when I elected to publicly share my conviction that the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions was morally wrong and unconstitutional, not only did I become a public official, I became a marked man subject to an endless stream of abuse and venomous conduct.

With opposition to my beliefs coming, at times, from my own political party, even the president of the United States, there have been many occasions over the course of the past decade that I have had to search the recesses of my soul to find the strength to continue a battle that I thought was won back in the mid-1960s; namely, with the victory of the civil rights movement.

It is not that I have ever doubted my beliefs or the strength of those beliefs. My concerns have always related to why the need to fight for the principle of equality remains over forty years after I thought we had settled this issue; and is the fight worth the personal price that must be exacted to wage it?

I have an aunt who died a few months ago. Before her death, Aunt Bert said, “Son, the Lord has a way of letting us know when we are doing the right thing.” I firmly believe that she was right and that she was giving me advice upon which I could rely.

In the course of the past decade, since I first ventured into this public fray, there have been two occasions when I seemed reassured that the Good Lord was giving me the signs that I needed and when I needed them.

The first event occurred after the passage of Proposition 209, when claims were often made that Proposition 209 had become harmful to the political prospects of the California Republican Party by making the party appear to be “hostile” to “minorities,” particularly Latinos. Political pundits argued that Propositions 187 (the ban to deny benefits to illegal immigrants) and 209 (the ban against preferences based on race, color, sex, ethnicity and national origin) had consigned the Republican party to decades of obscurity by making it less than attractive to blacks and Latinos. This unsubstantiated claim essentially made political pariahs out of California Governor Pete Wilson and me.

It was therefore with much relief and gratitude that I received the Ronald Reagan Award for Leadership in 1997 from the California Republican party for my work in leading the effort to enact Proposition 209. I knew and worked for Ronald Reagan and considered him to be one of the most avid proponents of a colorblind society of any public official I have ever encountered. Reagan eschewed the practice of pandering to individuals based on their “race” in order to get their vote. He strongly opposed race-based affirmative action preferences and was not shy about publicly defending such a position. Therefore, to be honored with the Ronald Reagan Award was a strong reassurance that my involvement with 209 was not outside the mainstream of the GOP but was, indeed, consistent with the beliefs of the most popular and respected Republican of our time.

The second event occurred just weeks ago when the Bradley Foundation honored me along with three others by awarding me the Bradley Prize for 2005. I feel an obligation to publicly share the personal importance of this award and to put its receipt into some personal and public context.

Many have described me as the “nation’s most outspoken opponent of race preferences.” This characterization is often made with little or no explanation for why I oppose preferences. Moreover, few seem to understand the overall significance of the anti-preference campaign. In fact, this issue is viewed as some sort of abstraction; or, worse, a mean-spirited attempt to deny opportunities to women and “minorities.”

The fact that President George W. Bush, an avowed “conservative,” has had such a difficult time during his terms as governor of Texas and president of the United States taking a clear and non-triangulated position about race preferences, preferring to express his support for “affirmative access,” should be evidence that this issue is not seen as a fundamental tenet of conservatism in the eyes of Bush. In addition, the opposition of the Michigan Republican party to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) — a move dictated, some believe, by the national administration — is further evidence of the GOP’s less than strong support of the principle of equality. In fact, the principle of equal treatment under the law has given way to the more amorphous concept of “diversity,” which I consider to be the antithesis of a merit-based, colorblind government.

As a product of the 1960s, I believe devoutly in “civil rights.” By that, I believe that every American has the right to expect to be treated equally in the public domain — voting, education, employment, contracting — when that individual interacts with his or her government. Thus, “civil rights” are not just for black people. They are for every American and are basic rights to be applied by every government agency operating with taxpayer funds.

The significance of the Bradley Prize is that it is awarded by one of our nation’s most revered and sturdy proponents of American liberal democracy. A look around our nation will reveal the awesome influence of the Bradley Foundation on American culture. Thus, what Bradley does is of profound significance. In addition, the Bradley Prize is based on one’s performance in defending and promoting a few basic ideals. The Bradley Prize causes all of us who believe in American ideals to pause for a moment and to rededicate ourselves to the ideals that we consider critical to the nation’s survival and overall success. Specifically, the ideals of freedom, equality and capitalism have been mentioned as basic to Bradley.

When I initially learned of the Bradley Prize, it came by way of a telephone call from Michael Grebe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bradley Foundation, confirming my receipt of the award and informing me that I would have six to eight minutes to give an acceptance speech. For the first time in years, this opportunity compelled me to think about what has become my life’s work and why I consider it to be of value.

One fact is indisputable: the centerpiece of American life is a set of basic ideals upon which the nation was founded and to which circumstances occasionally conspire to require our defense of that system. These ideals are relatively few if we think about it. First and foremost is our system of freedom. I would contend that we place no other value above the right to be free. We will die for our freedom. In fact, we believe freedom is sufficiently important that we will even die so that others around the globe might be free.

Second is the system of capitalism. We are a capitalistic society dedicated to the principle of individual merit and a belief that individuals should be rewarded economically for their individual efforts.

The third leg of this stool is the ideal of individual equality. To be a capitalist and to be free, one must live in a nation that acknowledges the right of every individual to be treated as an equal and not to be consigned to some station in life based on the ancestral circumstances of one’s birth, including one’s skin color. We call this ideal “equal treatment before the law.” It is also implicitly referenced in our pronouncement about “liberty and justice for all.”

Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that as a self-evident truth “all men are created equal.” Martin Luther King, Jr. invoked this principle during his campaign, known as the “civil rights movement,” to free black people from the oppressive conditions that faced them up until the mid-1960s. The two words that are generally used to define this movement are “freedom” and “equality.” King clearly saw the connection between the two. It was his realization that the Emancipation Proclamation was hollow if black people were not treated with the dignity of others and the right to be vote, go to college, eat at public restaurants, and enjoy the benefits of American life “without regard to the color of their skin or their race.” When King expressed his yearning for the day when his four little children would be judged based on the “content of their character” and not the “color of their skin,” in that one passage he connected the three pillars of American life: capitalism, equality and freedom. In short, the success of his children should be based on their individual accomplishments and merit and their right to equal treatment. When that happened, he was essentially saying, they would be truly free. King made the critical link between equality and freedom and emphasized through the civil rights movement that one could not exist without the other.

There are now those who seem to believe that civil rights are just for black people or other “people of color” or women. Those who harbor this belief are not true civil rights “activists;” they are civil rights frauds.

For me, the Bradley Prize was a critical validation that there is at least one major institution of American life that understands and appreciates my view that the principle of equal treatment under the law is a basic American ideal worth fighting to retain. And, for that, I am profoundly grateful and enormously energized to continue this modern-day civil rights movement.

The validation is not just a personal one, however. It is for, and of, all those who are working tirelessly, in ways big and small, to defeat the mantra of “diversity” and to reinstate the principle of equality as a fundamental “civil right” for all Americans. It is of Tim Eyman and John Carlson, who led the successful recent effort on our behalf to convince a Democrat-controlled Legislature in the State of Washington that because the people of Washington voted in 1998 by a margin of 60-40 percent to enact Initiative 200 (the Washington Civil Rights Initiative), they could do it again — and toss out a few legislators in the process — if the Legislature approved pending legislation to amend I-200.

The validation is of Roger Clegg, who consistently promotes the principles of a colorblind government at the national level. It is of Valerie Pech, who gave so much to our “movement” with her battle in Colorado. It is of University of California Regent John Moores, a former colleague of mine, who insists that UC administrators be faithful to the will of the people when they approved Proposition 209 in 1996. It is of the Pacific Legal Foundation that is leading the legal fight to ensure that 209 is not eroded by bureaucrats in California State and local government.

My Bradley Prize for equality is for those state and local officials and candidates in several cities, counties and states who are increasingly saying publicly that “affirmative action” is no longer justified. It is of Jennifer Gratz, Barbara Grutter, Carl Cohen and Leon Drolet in Michigan, all of whom led our effort that resulted in more signatures being gathered (508,222) to qualify the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) than any initiative in the history of Michigan. This was no small accomplishment due to the opposition that came from the Michigan Republican Party, left-wing radicals such as the “Coalition to Preserve Diversity and Affirmative Action By any Means Necessary” and a bunch of feminists and elite women’s advocates, who seek to preserve preferences based on gender by making the astounding accusations that the passage of MCRI will expose women to breast and cervical cancer as well as prostate cancer, despite the absence of prostates in women.

This validation is of Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. Although he partially thwarted our efforts to qualify the Florida Civil Rights Initiative for the ballot a few years ago, all is forgiven due to the resounding success of his “One Florida” Executive Order that ended preferences in several segments of state government.

College Republicans on campuses throughout the country. . . this one is for you, for your courage in sponsoring “affirmative action” bake sales in the face of hostile opposition from university administrators and others who falsely and recklessly accuse you of “racism.” By discounting the prices of cookies and cakes based on race/ethnicity, you have boldly ridiculed the silliness, unfairness and sheer hypocrisy of race preferences.

There are so many others who comprise this modern-day civil rights “movement” that I feel a sense of profound remorse by not mentioning them all, but that is an obvious impossibility. Suffice to say, however, that the battle to end preferences suffered only a momentary setback on June 23, 2003 when the United States Supreme Court sanctioned the use of race to achieve the amorphous goal of “diversity.” Many thought the Court had erected a stop sign to hold back the anti-preference/pro equality movement. Instead, it was clearly only a speed bump in the journey to make good on our nation’s promise that every American will be guaranteed the right to equal treatment, regardless of race, color, sex, ethnic background or national ancestry, when engaging in transactions with their government. This validation reaffirms our view that “civil rights” belong to whites and Asians as much as they do to blacks and Hispanics.

Thank you to “the Bradley” — the Golden Lion of American culture.

*   *   *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!