U.C.
Regent Ward Connerly:
On the Wrong side of History
by
Frank A. Jones
History is funny sometimes. Many who are popular in life for some populous position taken are often reviled by historians and repudiated by the insightful judgment of history. Sometimes this is before death and sometimes after death.
Often those ostracized and even persecuted by the masses for unpopular stances taken are often elevated by historians and finely judged by history as correct, courageous, and even visionaries far ahead of their times.
Populous notions of a nation are easily sided with, for it takes nothing extraordinary to move with the herd, to sing in a crowd, or to go with the flow of the wind. But to stand on principles the masses find unpopular takes more than most are willing to produce--we live in an age of values determined by consensus.
During the life of Martin Luther, he was not viewed with great popularity in authoritative circles. But today, after his death and through the insightful and clear gaze of history, we see him as a David of clear sight against a Goliath of ignorance, and even today his words ring with logical clarity and practicality. Likewise, Martin Luther King, an apostle of truth and sound values for this nation and the world, stands as a beacon of clarity and truth after history's gaze.
This nation and all nations, have persecuted and prosecuted those stout enough to carve out a trench of resistance and declare that they stand there and will do none other: Malcolm X was reviled because he had the courage to stand on unpopular principles; Martin Luther King was considered one of America's most unpopular men; even Abraham Lincoln was reviled for his stance on a principle.(1) Yet today, these figures, unpopular for their stance on certain principles during their lifetimes, have had insightful history's positive judgment.
It is tragic to be on the wrong side of history, for surviving relatives must either repudiate their own or defend a wrong they were only hereditary spectators in and not active participants. Furthermore, history, while an insightful judge, is, nevertheless, a merciless one. And this we can be assured, that the moral arch of the universe is long, but it always bends toward justice.(2)
This is the present road on which Ward Connerly travels, to the crosshairs of history's gaze. This road is being propelled by the present willingness of the new chancellor of U. C. Berkeley, Robert Birgeneau, to take an unpopular position after seeing the injustice that has resulted to Black Californians in the U. C. admissions policies. Those policies have worked a disparaging result on black Californian taxpayers in that we have paid proportionally as other Californians for the support and upkeep of the U. C. system of public education but have not benefited proportionally in our children being admitted to study in that system. And that result has been championed by Ward Connerly, a black regent of the school system.
The direct, noticeable decline of black students admitted to the U. C. system and studying therein is a primary result of Mr. Connerly's stalwart position that no affirmative action for blacks be allowed, even in the midst of an almost complete blindness to the ubiquity of white affirmative action built into the very fabric of the U. C. system and throughout the fabric of the nation. Indeed, Ward Connerly rose to national fame through being a Black Conservative who vigorously labored against affirmative action for blacks. He has been loved by white, conservative Americans, but history will not be as kind.
The argument used to support his position was that black students would feel inferior were they allowed into U. C. through affirmative action. While it is, were it so, wonderful that Connerly is concerned about black feelings, everyone knows that such a rationale is little more than ill-fitting sheep's clothing on this wolf of an argument. The entire cottage industry of Black Conservatives has no concern about black feelings or the state of Black America, but merely their own enrichment and popularity. After all, it is a cottage industry to make money; the more popular, the more money.
But the problem this industry has is that it is on the wrong side of history; a side of history that is not for the moral position of an issue, but only for limited financial gain at the expense of the larger black community; a side of history that identifies these Black Conservatives with the historical Nigger Spotters. (3) Most Black Conservatives are not moral conservatives at all--their position has little or nothing to do with morality; they are usually mere spokesmen for white moneyed political interests, who reward them in dollars and cents and media recognition. Black Conservatives are a cottage industry, in which they are heralded as leaders who are popular and insightful. But, in truth, they are leaders without portfolio other than attempting to polarize and fracture what they see as a politically and educationally rising black middle class community.(4)
When a new chancellor of U C Berkeley comes in, as Robert Birgeneau (5) has come, and acts to change and repudiate the harsh reception to blacks by this public school, it is clear that he is uninfluenced by the imprudent claptrap of Ward Connerly, but is instead guided by right and justice, promising to cast a Ward Connerly result into the dust-bin of imprudence and shame, it again spotlights the fact that Ward Connerly has been made a national leader against affirmative action, specifically black affirmative action, not white affirmative action; white affirmative action has gone under his and most other white conservatives' radar as a thing that does not exist. The actions and words of the new UC Berkeley chancellor declare vividly that Connerly is now and will be adjudged to have been on the wrong side of history and that for a hand full of dollar and to acquire a voice in media that he should have never had.
And although he is leaving U. C. Regents Board, he has been a cause of much injustice inflicted on black California taxpayers and their children. But merciless history will record that he acted not for the good of the larger community but his own narrow financial gain. []
_______________
1. Whether the principle was that slavery was wrong or
that saving the Union was right, he stood on an unpopular principle that
cost his life. The historians can debate this issue.
2.Martin Luther King's
"Letter From a Birmingham Jail."
3. Within the slavery culture there were a number of black individuals who worked adversely to black slaves; they were hired to identify legalized blacks--those who were black based on a rigid legal determination of a black based on a certain amount of black blood. This system was also functioning during Nazi Germany against Jews. See Stanley Elkins' writings on American slavery.
4. For those Black Conservatives not in it for the money but who truly think they can achieve an end worthy of the nobility of the community's trust, like J. C. Watts, Colin Powell, etc., they soon recognize their inability to be heard. But those like Shelby Steele, John McWhorters, Stanley Crouch, etc., in it for the money, they will formulate arguments, they will cast themselves into any attractive vessel for the white moneyed interests who will pay them. They are not concerned about history or the greater good; they are interested in financial gain and the clamor of the limited media attention this industry affords.
5. Robert Birgeneau is the new chancellor of U. C. Berkeley, and upon seeing the low numbers of blacks attending that flagship school, he vowed to change that picture because it is shameful. A shameful state Ward Connerly is the major architect in creating.
