John J. Moores, Chairman
University of California Board of Regents
1111 Franklin St., 12th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
Dear John,
On December 13, 2003, I appeared on "CNN with Wolf Blitzer," as
a private citizen (not as a UC Regent), to express my belief that
United States Senator Trent Lott should withdraw from consideration
to be Senate Majority Leader in view of his comments–made a week
earlier–that appeared to praise the segregationist past of Senator
Strom Thurmond.
During the interview, Mr. Blitzer asked if I thought Senator
Lott was a "racist." I said that I didn’t think so, and then I
expanded upon my reply. A copy of the transcript of the interview
is attached so that you might see the full context of my remarks.
The relevant excerpt, however, is as follows:
"BLITZER: Well, the bottom line in other words, what you’re
saying is that you do believe that was a racist statement that he
made last week.
CONNERLY: Supporting segregation need not be racist. One can
believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races, so it
doesn’t necessarily make it racist but I think it’s certainly a
poor direction for this nation to have pursued namely
segregation.
I won’t say that he’s racist. I don’t think he is. I think one
could believe in equality of the races as he has talked about and
believe that the races should remain separate and not have a notion
that Black people are inferior for example. But I just cannot
reconcile those words that he said. I don’t know what he could have
meant by all of these problems."
There were three primary reasons why I commented as I did.
First, calling someone a "racist" is one of the most serious social
indictments we can make of any individual. It is a label that, once
applied, hangs around that person’s neck for a lifetime. By
definition, a racist is one who hates others because of their
"race," who is prejudiced, or who engages in racial discrimination
or the persecution of others because of their "race." I reserve
that term for those who fit the definition based on my personal
knowledge of their beliefs or conduct or my research into their
background. I am not one who casually invokes that term.
Race is one of our nation’s most nagging and contentious issues.
From my experience, racism often does not result from hate and
prejudice but from fear and ignorance. Calling an individual a
"racist" and then bludgeoning that individual into submission does
not erase their fears and ignorance; it only drives them
underground. Thus, I am just naturally cautious about the use of
that term. I believe the transcript reveals my caution.
Second, although most of us think of the subjugation of black
people whenever we hear the term "segregation," in reality,
segregation can apply to other circumstances as well. There can be
self-imposed segregation resulting from students who "cluster" on
campus; and segregation can be the unintended consequence of
certain actions, such as that which the proponents of race
preferences contend will be the result of ending race-based
admissions.
For my part, I abhor segregation in all forms. And, if the issue
is racial segregation as practiced following slavery-often imposed,
sanctioned and enforced by government decree-then that form of
segregation is obviously indefensible. It is unconstitutional, but
more significantly, it is immoral. But, I persist in saying that it
is possible for an individual to believe in "keeping with his own
kind," as I once heard an individual say, and not hate those of
another "kind" or believe them to be inferior or to persecute them
in any way. That is what we call "freedom of association." Those
who exercise that right are not necessarily racists, although such
is more likely to be the case than not.
I am belaboring this point so that you can have a better
understanding of what I meant when I replied to Blitzer as I did.
But, let me make one thing clear: Under NO circumstances do I
diminish or condone or "defend" in any manner the era of racial
segregation that caused black people to be treated like animals.
When it is established or sanctioned by the government, I not only
abhor segregation, I devoutly embrace the edict of Brown v.
Education.
Separate was not equal and was borne of a desire to keep people
like me "in their place." Such segregation was despicable and will
forever blight our nation’s history. When it is a matter of
personal choice, although it is not the way I live my life or would
counsel others who would seek my opinion, I hesitate to pass
judgment on those who prefer to segregate themselves, as a matter
of their freedom to associate with whomever they please, as long as
their conduct does not harm or adversely affect others.
Now, let me address the letter that, according to press
accounts, thirty-six Democrat legislators have sent to our Board
calling for me to be "reprimanded" or "rebuked" for my views. The
fact that all signatories of this letter are Democrats and
opponents of Proposition 209 and the Racial Privacy Initiative are,
undoubtedly, significant factors in this controversy.
The letter states: "Connerly’s comments betray a stunning
ignorance of the history of segregation and racism."
Having been born in Leesville, Louisiana in 1939, I wish I did
have a "stunning ignorance" of societal segregation that was
enforced by my government. Unfortunately, my experiences with such
segregation have not come from history books or other sources of
reading material; it has been of a cruel, up-close and personal
variety. As a child growing up in Louisiana, I personally witnessed
signs that read, "WE DO NOT SERVE COLOREDS." Therefore, I don’t
need members of the Latino Caucus, other legislators, or students
two-generations removed from the REALITY of a truly racist system
to chastise me, or counsel me on racial etiquette.
From birth, the "c" on my birth certificate, for "colored",
defined the structure and limitations of the life that I was able
to live as a child in the Deep South. There is nothing more
humiliating, more debilitating than to watch your 30-year-old uncle
being called a "boy" and dressed down in front of his wife and
nephew by a 16-year old white boy exercising the privilege of his
skin color. So, believe me when I tell you that I can live without
the abstract lessons of those who have not lived the life that I
have.
The letter further states: "Segregation has always been a
manifestation of racism and the two cannot be divided. One cannot
believe in segregation and equality. Segregation by its very
definition is discriminatory."
With such a view, I wonder how the signatories to the letter
reconcile the California Latino Caucus, an entity whose membership
is limited to "Latinos?" How about the Congressional Black Caucus,
the Black and Chicano Student Unions on our campuses, Black
Freshman Orientation at UC Davis (and other campuses), Chicano and
African American Graduation Ceremonies at UC, so-called "theme
houses" where students self-segregate based on race and ethnicity,
race-based fraternities and sororities, Black Alumni Associations,
Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, and many others too numerous to
mention. It is indisputable that these organizations are
"segregated" by race and ethnicity. In my generosity of spirit to
not equate all "segregation" or "separation of the races" with
"racism," as a matter of definition, perhaps I have been
overlooking an epidemic of flat-our racism in our midst. Perhaps, I
have been in error in believing that since I do not see visible
signs of malice, hate or prejudice in the conduct of these
organizations and their members, they are not racists. If
California’s fiscal crisis is not enough to occupy the attention of
responsible legislators, perhaps they might want to confront all of
this "racism" that I have mentioned, based on their definition of
segregation, instead of pursuing a foolish, Nazi-like expedition to
condemn me for my refusal to conform to their way of thinking. If
they say these are not segregated entities of the sort that they
find objectionable, I wonder if they would reach a similar
conclusion if an organization devoted to the interests of "white
people" were to seek recognition on one of our campuses? Finally,
let me address the issue of my initial reaction to this controversy
when I was informed of it by a reporter for the Oakland Tribune.
She said several students "demand" that I apologize for my comments
"defending segregation." "What do you want to tell them?" I said,
"Tell them to go to hell." That was a heart-felt outburst of anger
and outrage and I have no regrets for expressing it.
I have malice for no one and I have always been respectful of
the views of others. My patience in the endurance of insults at
Regents meetings and other venues is a trait that has not gone
without notice of those who monitor our proceedings. But, I will
not allow myself to be intimidated by students or legislators into
conforming to what they want me to say or apologizing when my words
fit not into the mold that they have created. I especially will not
casually brush aside any suggestion that I condone the oppressive
system of inhumanity under which not only some of my ancestors
lived, but did I as well.
What I found particularly appalling was the utter hypocrisy of
their manufactured concern about my comments. While they were
falsely accusing me of "defending segregation," Mo Kashmiri and
Jessica Quindel-who opposed displaying the American Flag and
singing "God Bless America" at a "9/11" memorial-were running to a
member of the California Latino Caucus to do their dirty work for
them. All the while, in the Chicano "theme-house" (Casa de Joaquin
Murietta), an effigy of me was hanging from a noose. These were the
same individuals who were involved in burning me in effigy on
campus a few years ago. If there is a more despicable symbol of
racial segregation-Deep South in the 1950s-style-than a black man
hanging from a noose, I don’t know what it is. Yes, I found that
sufficiently beyond the bounds of civil discourse to tell them to
"go to hell" with emphasis.
This Trifecta of Hypocrisy-Latino Caucus member leading the
attack (1) and me hanging in effigy in a noose (2) in a Chicano
"theme house" (3)-is not something that any responsible legislator
should take lightly. How can it be that individuals who pride
themselves on being liberal or "progressive" can be so intolerant
of diverse views, so demanding that everyone fall into their
conformist pattern of thinking, and that refusal to apologize for
having a difference in perspective be grounds for a
"reprimand?"
But, then again, when your objective is to try to build a
head-of-steam to oppose an initiative such as the Racial Privacy
Initiative, common rules of decency, civility and freedom of
expression can be suspended, I suppose.
Sincerely,
Ward Connerly