Mary Baker, an African-American woman, writes this astonishing piece on "Why I am no longer an African-American" over at the American Thinker. People who know this blog and my work with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) probably understand where the article is going just based on that title, but her critique is a pretty simple critique of the divisiveness of identity-politics. Here's a clip:

It is these principles that make me proud to just be an American. So, I select for my identity the title of American. The radical ideologies of Blacks involved in the Civil Rights Movement gave birth to attitudes like those of Professor Henry Lewis Gates Jr., the Harvard professor who became livid when his identity was questioned by a white police officer. Those who embrace Professor Gate's sentiments and attitudes today are those who still believe that America owes something to the Black population for the horrors of slavery. They are the ones that continue to stoke the fires of racial hatred toward other races and promote the continued attitude of self pity within the Black community. They also hold to the teachings of Black Liberation Theology, a school of thought that I never knew existed until the presidential campaign of then Senator Barak Obama. The teachings of Black Liberation Theology run counter to the American way. They also are counterproductive to the love I hold for my country.

I began to think about how we all got to be categorized in the first place. I have not noticed on any forms that the category of American is an option to be selected. Is this division amongst us perpetrated by our very own government? It is obvious that the inspiration for the classification of African American has nothing to do with those born of African descent.

I'm not a big fan of the U.N., but found it curious when a google alert came up pointing me to work citing my 1993 honors thesis on military expenditure. The power of the internet. That work has already been cited by the Atlas Foundation (in 2005 I believe) and several other groups, but I'm surprised at the reach & recognition my 1993 paper has received through my simple republication of it on my website.

The original paper was a statistical cross-sectional analysis and meta-analysis of data relating to how third world nations are impacted economically by military expenditure.

The original is in French, but here's the Google translation of the title.

Paper presented at the International Conference organized by ECA and the
CODESRIA sur le thème : CODESRIA on:
« INSTITUTIONS, CULTURE ET CORRUPTION EN AFRIQUE » "INSTITUTIONS, CULTURE AND CORRUPTION IN AFRICA"
Date : 13 - 15 Octobre 2008 Date: 13 - 15 October 2008
Lieu : Centre de Conférence des Nations Unies, Location: Conference Center of the United Nations,
Addis-Abeba, Ethiopie. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Over at Facebook on my personal photos page, I've posted some photos from the 2nd Annual Sam Adams Sammies Awards. The awards reward solid citizen activism and journalism at the local and regional level, and are a worthy cause. Kudos should be given to the citizens honored though - they are fighters for truth and citizen empowerment. I was particularly fascinated by the story of William Carlin Walker of Liberty, Missouri for exposing misuse of credit card accounts by administrators in the local school district. That story is not unique - over OutsideLansing.com, I've reported on Macomb County's own Chippewa Valley school's misuse of credit cards, which has resulted in proposed legislation by Marty Knollenberg and others (HB 4666 is here). And we just learned of this debacle in Flint - for those who suggested our action might be "trivial," I say two things. 1) Do you see a pattern developing? 2) Even if only a small number of administrators do this, and I suspect that somewhat true, reform begins with little change and builds. Further, if the people set a precedent of allowing "minor" indiscretions, the symbolism encourages public employees into larger takings and indiscretions. When you get a speeding ticket, telling the judge that you were the only one caught of hundreds or it was just a few miles over the limit isn't a proper defense.

Paul Jacob, a supporter of Sam Adams, over at CommonSense has this fascinating analysis of Mississippi's fascist attempt to ban restaurants from serving fat people. What's sad is that a Republican embarrassingly co-sponsored this nanny-state bill.

Paul Jacob and two others now known as the "Oklahoma Three" are now free from charges brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, a Democrat, who sought to retaliate against the three for a failed 2005 anti-tax petition drive. The drive failed after a special master of the Oklahoma Supreme Court found too many signatures were collected by individuals he didn't believe "intended to reside permanently" in Oklahoma. Two years later, in 2007, Jacob and other organizers were indicted for a 10-year felony charge of "conspiring to defraud the state" - a vague catchall statute on the theory that they intentionally violated residency requirements and that intentional violation amounted to 1) a conspiracy and 2) defrauding the state (so literally, any group effort that violated complex Oklahoma rules could become a 10 year felony). While the state criminal case proceeded in early discovery phases, a federal Constitutional challenge to the residency requirement - on First Amendment grounds - was raised.

Jacob's case is important nationally as Oklahoma became a "dead zone" for petitioners - chilled by the prospect of 10 years in prison. No ballot initiatives qualified in 2008 through the process, and efforts such as Ward Connerly's Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative was quelled because of the chilled environment and a number of other difficulties all coming to together. The 10th Circuit's refusal to rehear the case and Edmondson's decision not to appeal to the US Supreme Court, puts the 10th Circuit in among other circuits and regions with similar rulings. Here, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Leon Drolet's Michigan Taxpayer's Alliance successfully fought residency requirements in the Andy Dillon recall battle. While the Dillon effort paid off for Dillon by delaying the recall until the regular election, and thereby changing its dynamic, the impact of the residency ruling will be broader ranging for future petition rights, at least until another Circuit disagrees and a case somewhere reaches the US Supreme Court.

In the current legal and political environment, one should never rule a frivolous suit being successful, particularly regarding the civil rights initiatives lead by Ward Connerly. Lawsuits are even repeated exactly verbatim in the same state even after opponents lose, as was the case recently in Missouri challenging MoCRI's attempt to requalify for 2010.

But in Nebraska where voters approved the initiative in 2008, the game clock appears to be winding down with a positive result. NbCRI appears to have won on both late "signature ethics" challenges (the usual meta-"word game" the left plays with "affirmative action" and "deception") and the so-called "single subject rule." In fact, the judge's ruling on that issue is very important, as it represents a common-sense rebuff to the left on an old strategy they played somewhat successfully with the Florida Supreme Court in 2000, and it has bearing on several future states CRI's might appear in.

Below the fold I'm including the raw text of the decision as well as NbCRI's press release. Enjoy.

Read more »

Congratulations to President Barack O'Bama on his historic moment. His inaugral speech hit mixed notes in my mind, I'll point to two.

In my mind, this is the most interesting passage of the speech (which had no "zingers" like "fear itself" or "ask not"):

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

There's a definitely an element of the diversity and multi-cultural "speak" in this, but I'm drawn to the way it is not written. It is not written as an attack on America's past, but as a recognition of the past as perhaps a proof that the "other old hatreds" (Arab-Israeli conflict, the religious battle lines that dominate foreign affairs, and simpler, smaller hatreds that dot the world) can be overcome. His line "the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve" is certainly hopeful and could be construed in a conservative and individualistic light, but it is unclear where O'Bama would deviate the tribalist policies many in his party support or how he intends to get us there.

Here's the second:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

The first sentence is interesting in that while it seems to be an attempt to change the paradigm debate on "big v. small government" to "effective government." But if the question is "whether it works" and the answer is "no" much more often than it is yes, will we truly see the programs end? Of course, the reason small-government conservatives are for small government is not just for the sake of liberty - it is because we believe, more often than not, bigger government doesn't work. He's set himself up for a test here - does government work? Will Barack O'Bama's version of government work? If it does not, then we must "hold to account" the leader. If he fails to "spend wisely", to "reform bad habits", or most importantly do business "in the light of day" - he must be held accountable. As a fervent believer in open records and meetings, I wish him the best of luck in increasing government transparency - if that is what he means. And if he "spends wisely" and does those things, he'll be hard to beat.

That is the test he should be held to in 2012!

Check out this stunning google visual I've created comparing four trend lines using google trend statistics, using the last four presidential nonimees (Bush, Kerry, McCain, O'Bama). Barack O'Bama quickly became the darling of both the media (bottom) and the new internet media (top). It says much about the internet and how Democrats dominated the new media this year, but it also says something about how well the candidate integrated his campaign with the new media. Clearly, O'Bama benefited in media presence from the extended primary battle, but even after the conventions he maintained healthy command in search data statistics and more importantly in mainstream news searches. It was during the downstretch of the campaign that his name ID spiked, relative to both McCain and the previous 2004 George Bush-John Kerry contest.

To conservatives - heed this data.

The ACRI blog documents this mastery of frivolous abuse of process in Missouri.

The Missouri Secretary of State Jean Carnahan is submitting the same ballot summary proposal language that a court rejected last year, following a renewed request by MoCRI organizers to qualify for the 2010 ballot. That's an abuse of power of the highest level (reminding us of Doyle O'Connor).

Simultaneously, the ACLU has already stepped up its frivolty by filing a lawsuit based on arguments it also lost in the last legal battles in Missouri.

If this doesn't prove that preference-based affirmative action supporters will willfully abuse the legal system for the illegal and immoral purpose of financially draining opponents, I don't know what does.

It's been a couple months as my regulars here will recognize (hopefully still coming off RSS). Elections and consulting intervene, and most of my online work is reported at www.outsidelansing.com or www.Oaklandpolitics.com. But this is still the place for my thoughts on race issues and anything not fitting within the easy confines of those sites.

Over at the ACRI blog, LaShawn Barber has a nice commentary, with a good discussion thread, on banning VIP and legacy preferences, which originated from a Reason Magazine article early in 2008 by Shikha Dalmia, whom we mentioned ironically in our very last post here immediately below, two months ago, on the O'Bama presidency. Anyway, here's LaShawn's read on that article and the future of movement.

We're moving our reporting of the Howell School e-mail FOIA lawsuit over to OutsideLansing.com, even though it began here 17 months ago, since it fits that topical site better. But for those of you following it - the Livingston Circuit Court ruled in favor of us and the schools over the Michigan Education Association. There's plenty to follow, so stay tuned.

Shikha Dalmia is a Michigan writer formerly with the Detroit News. Here, in Forbes, she opines on how race preferences could be replaced with socio-economic alternatives - and how, if Barack O'Bama did it, he could transform the political landscape. The article was written just before O'Bama expanded his narrow margin, so keep it in that context. With his current margin, I'd expect to see nothing unusual out of his campaign - but that begs the question of whether he should act transformatively. For all the bluster of his change themed campaign, there is little substantively tranformative, especially on race issues, from O'Bama.

This is a topic I've addressed many times, dating as far as a Michigan Bar Journal op-ed I wrote in 2003 and other pieces for regional papers. I've suggested here recently that O'Bama could transform the landscape, as have observers like John Rosenberg over at Discriminations. Dalmia is spot on in her analysis, but, alas, I don't think its in O'Bama's heart and even if it were, we're not likely to see it from him pre-election, because his core constituency would react too harshly.

But imagine it as a mid-term ploy to help O'Bama 2012 re-election?

The brand new American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) blog (Ward Connerly's national organization focusing on race issues), run by well-known blogger LaShawn Barber, has this piece pointing out a Saginaw News article two weeks ago about Saginaw Valley State University's reaction to Michigan's Proposal 2 of 2006 (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, MCRI).

The article, by Andy Hoag, begins with this ridiculous assertion for a media source claiming to write news:

Michigan's ban on affirmative action has hurt minority recruiting at some colleges, but Saginaw Valley State University isn't among them.

Where's the evidence of a "hurt minority recruiting"?

Of course, the article is a glorification of how SVSU has evaded Proposal 2, as we'll implied in the lede. But get this:

By using focused recruiting and special scholarships as tools, SVSU has increased its share of under-represented minorities -- blacks, Hispanics and American Indians -- by 4.25 percent this fall, to 245 freshmen from 235.

This is the first full freshman class since voters passed Proposal 2 in November 2006, banning preferential treatment based on race. Some minorities already had received scholarships for fall 2007 before the proposal's passage.

It has hampered colleges such as Grand Valley State University in Allendale, where the number of under-represented minorities is down 30 percent this fall.

At Ann Arbor-based University of Michigan, which defended its affirmative action policy all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, enrollment of minority students dropped to 10.47 percent this year from 10.85 percent last year.

Reverse engineer the math in paragraph one, and you realize that that's a 4.25% increase in absolute enrollment. Says nothing about overall percentages or relative increases in percentages. Then the third paragraph refers to a 30 percent decline, but we don't know whether that's relative to other percentages or absolute. U-M's decline is measured in relative percentages (not noting that the absolute number increased because overall enrollment also increased slightly faster than minority increases), and the fall is a tiny 0.38% fall, or relative to the base 3.5% change. Hardly a falling sky.

SVSU details some of its policies, which are right at the edge of legality:

''We make sure our admissions representatives are visiting high schools that have a large percentage of minority students,'' SVSU spokesman J.J. Boehm said.

SVSU also has relied on other scholarships -- private ones, which Proposal 2 does not affect -- to keep up minority freshmen enrollment.

''Through our private SVSU Foundation, there continues to be individual scholarships for which ethnicity is a consideration, based on the wishes of the donor,'' Boehm said. ''But those are administered through the foundation, not through the university's general fund.''

While visiting high schools with high minority populations might be good recruiting and legal, if that is the sole criteria of visitation and you admit it, it might be a violation. The true criteria for recruitment should be race-neutral NEED -- high schools that are underperforming, including rural and urban schools. That will automatically give you more minorities -- but the initial criteria is need, not race. Here, it sounds like Boehm's criteria is race.

Still, a tough area to litigate.

The good news is that there are some scholarships that are need based, as the story of Jerika Beckom demonstrates.

A regular scholarship was key for SVSU junior Jerika Beckom.

Beckom, who grew up in Detroit and went to Detroit Community High, a charter school, received SVSU's Presidential Scholarship, a merit-based academic scholarship that provides full tuition for its recipients.

''It was extremely important for me to get that,'' she said. ''I come from a family that doesn't have a large income, and without that scholarship, I wouldn't have been able to go to school. People talk about getting loans, but it's hard to get them if you don't have parents with a decent credit score.''

While the Presidential Scholarship is not based on race, other private scholarships are available to minorities and underprivileged students through organizations such as the Mott Foundation.

Beckom said she is among 15 students from her senior class to attend SVSU because of those scholarships.

''It's important for those to remain available for us,'' she said. ''Most of us are coming from families with low incomes or families that haven't secured money for us to go to school.''

That should be the model. Beckom proves that you don't need a race-based scholarship system and that the real question of opportunity and equality is based on money and low incomes. Indeed, Beckom's own words echo this and say nothing about race - rather it says everything about financial obstacles. This echoed by yet another student:

''We have to have funds,'' said Davis, 21. ''In my case, I wouldn't be here without financial aid.''

If the left were truly invested in social equality, it would abandon the notion that race is the issue, and focus on the real obstacles.

The private scholarship question raised by SVSU Foundation rests on facts - is the SVSU Foundation truly private. That's a very interesting, and nuanced question. It will require some digging.

Alan Foutz, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, points up an attempt by the Michigan Department of Transportation to mis-read and misuse the federal requirement exemption of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2 (2006 - 02), here in a Lansing State Journal column. I encourage readers, despite the passing of the October 1 deadline for comments, to send MDOT and other relevant actors their own comments. The attempt mirrors California's equivalent of MDOT's attempt last year to get the US Department of Transportation to approve race-preferences and then to argue that the approval constituted a "requirement" conditioning federal money, which would thereby exempt the policy from the CCRI (or in this case MCRI). It should be vigorously resisted.

Here's a clip:

All contractors who want their bids evaluated in accordance with Michigan law and without regard to their race or sex, or the race/sex of the competition, should take note. MDOT will most likely continue to seek authorization for its race-conscious programs until it reaches the conclusion that it simply may not employ race- and sex-based preferences. Or until it gets sued.

Taxpayers should likewise be concerned, if not outraged. Studies have shown that race-based preferences result in higher construction costs.

However, there is an alternative. MDOT can comply with the Michigan constitution and remain eligible for its federal funding by committing to accomplish its 10.5 percent disadvantaged businesses participation goal by using race-neutral methods. Also, contractors competing for work on federally assisted projects will have their bids evaluated without regard to race or sex and Michigan taxpayers will be spared the extra costs of race and sex preferences.

MDOT has invited questions and comments that must be submitted before noon on Oct. 1. This is an invitation that should be accepted by anyone concerned with MDOT's race-conscious contracting programs.

If you're a follower of this blog, take heed. If you need help on how to help, contact me (my first name at firstnamelastname.com) and I'll give you some direction.

Doyle O'Connor, the former member of the Board of Canvassers' that refused to abide by a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling, has evaded sanctions from a 3 person panel in the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission hearings over his misconduct, according to this Detroit Free Press article. Democrats and other interests pushed hard politically against the State Bar for even bringing the charges, and reading between the lines at least one of the two votes on the Commission's panel bought into the political arguments. Here's the key passage, with the most important point emphasized:

O’Connor’s lawyer, Kenneth Mogill, said two of the panelists had said the facts didn’t support the charge against O’Connor. Mogill said one of them said the grievance commission shouldn't be proud of itself for bringing the charge. Voters passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative in 2006, 58% to 42%. It banned race and gender affirmative action in university admissions and in government and public school hiring and contracting.

Proposal 2 got onto the ballot despite complaints that sponsors duped voters, especially blacks, into believing it promoted affirmative action. Supporters denied that.

The grievance commission, which investigates and prosecutes lawyers for alleged misconduct, said O'Connor refused at a July 2005 meeting to approve putting the measure on the ballot despite a state attorney general opinion that canvassers had no legal authority to look into petition fraud. And then, in December 2005, despite a Michigan Court of Appeals order to certify the proposal, he abstained.

O'Connor said he thought he was abstaining on a motion to close debate. The next month, he voted to put the measure on the ballot.

More than a dozen individuals and groups, including the Michigan Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters of Michigan, have urged the state Attorney Discipline Board to drop the charges. The board tries and disciplines lawyers for alleged misconduct.

How would O'Connor's attorney have inside access into the thoughts of panel members, even before they issued a written opinion? And the thought itself - that the very bringing of charges is something the AGC "shouldn't be proud of" - demonstrates that that panelists decision was based not "on the facts," but on an emotional and political calculus far outside of the facts.

But when you have the Chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party (Mark Brewer) on your side, and you're taking orders from him as Zarko Research video proved 3 years ago, its only natural he'll pull some strings for you to protect you from the consequences of your corruption.

Over at the fabulous "Empirical Legal Standards" blog, a new program unveiled by the University of Michigan Law School called "Wolverine Scholars" is criticized as a move away from standards and a "rankings grab" designed solely to artficially bump U-M's average Law student GPA so as to also bring U-M up in national prestige rankings (which include GPA as a criteria).

One of ELS's comments points out the "elephant in the room," that the program, which would allow only U-M undergrads with a GPA greater than 3.80 who have not yet taken an LSAT to apply to Law School under "holistic review", would give U-M a perfect opportunity to bypass Proposal 2 (since it can't ask other undergrad schools for racial IDs, and since a student on U-M's own campus will have a reputation including racial identity that can be easily ascertained by fellow U-M Law School admissions officers with a few phone calls) because it further clouds the process and eliminates a standard of measurement (the LSAT test, meaning that future racial compositions couldn't be easily challenged because some of students wouldn't have comparative LSAT data EVEN AVAILABLE for review). The nice think about ELS's though, in a way, is that it ignores the race preference issue and is critical of U-M solely because the new system is standardless and will create other unintended consequences.

Read the whole analysis, and you'll get the gist of what's going on. We're following the story deeper as well, so stay tuned.