Much has been said and written about the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) - a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by the voters of that state this past November. But, there are about ten major points that I, as the principal guiding force behind the MCRI campaign, need to share.

First: When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the pursuit of “diversity” in the student body was a sufficiently compelling factor to justify race preferences, far too many of us involved in the equal rights “movement” believed that the fight was over until the Court revisited this issue in about 25 years. Our victory in Michigan ought to teach us the lesson of perseverance in the furtherance of our ideals. Getting rid of race preferences is a marathon, not a sprint, because such practices are so deeply embedded into the fabric of American life. A negative court decision might deter the faint of heart, but it should merely be regarded as a speed bump for those who understand the importance of this issue to future generations.

Second: If we believe in the principle of self-government, we simply must have confidence in the collective wisdom of the people. Inherent in this is the importance of taking the time to understand the nuances of issues so that we can articulate our message in an adequate manner for the people to understand. By voting in favor of MCRI, contrary to the exhortations of nearly every component of the Michigan establishment -- social, civic, political and business – the people said “we get it,” and voted according to their own dictates.

Third: It is clear that proponents of race preferences have given up on their ability to convince the electorate about the wisdom of "affirmative action" to make up for our nation’s historical racial wrongs. Instead, they now seek to convince white women that they are the major beneficiaries of affirmative action. This argument failed in Michigan, as it did in California and in the State of Washington. It appears that “white guilt,” as Shelby Steele eloquently describes it, has just about run its course with respect to the people’s tolerance for race preferences.

Fourth: In the view of most Americans, "affirmative action" has become synonymous with race preferences. There is no longer any need to distinguish between the two. In fact, such efforts may only serve to confuse those who view the terms as interchangeable.

Fifth: The electorate is not persuaded, on this issue, by endorsements against the elimination of preferences from bigger than life public figures. For example, in all three of the campaigns that we have conducted to date – California, Washington and Michigan – Bill Clinton and Colin Powell strongly urged a “No” vote. In Michigan, Senator Barack Obama demonstrated that while he may be a “fresh face” on the political scene, he embraces the same old stale ideas as other Democrats when it comes to race preferences. Not only did he oppose MCRI, he even cut a radio ad claiming that “the playing field” is not level for women and “minorities.”  

Sixth: The term “minority” has clearly ceased to be a term to define numerical circumstances. It is a political definition used to suggest “social and economic disadvantage.” The term was used consistently throughout the MCRI campaign to describe those who suffer from “institutional racism in a society dominated by white males.” This definition would allow those of Mexican descent in California, who are rapidly becoming the numerical majority, to be viewed as a “minority,” despite their fast-approaching majority numerical status.

Seventh: Affirmative action essentially originated in a 1961 executive order issued by President John F. Kennedy commanding that all federal agencies and those doing business with the federal government take “affirmative action” to ensure that they were not discriminating against anyone because of race or skin color. Later, President Lyndon Johnson turned the concept into a temporary preference effort to enable black people to enter the mainstream of American life; to “level the playing field,” to use the cliché. Now, affirmative action is viewed as an entitlement for “women and minorities,” not only to “level the playing field” but to achieve the amorphous objective of “diversity.”

This conversion of the rationale for affirmative action should give those who care about the future of our nation great pause. The mere injection of "diversity" considerations generally reflects willingness to compromise on merit and qualifications.  The minimum becomes acceptable rather than the best.  Government-sanctioned discrimination to engineer racial and gender "representation" in various fields is not a good policy for America.

The rationale behind this push for greater "diversity" and "representation" is the theory that a "critical mass" of different groups will demolish stereotypes.  Frankly, I believe one Tiger Woods who arrived at his position on the basis of personal desire and a drive for excellence in his chosen field shatters more stereotypes than 100 "minority" golfers who are engineered into golfing.

The “diversity” rationale would make the elimination of race and gender preferences a virtual impossibility, because there would never come a time when the perceived beneficiaries would cooperate in the elimination of practices and policies that ostensibly benefit them. Not in a million lifetimes, if we heed the words of Kwame Kilpatrick, mayor of Detroit, who said, "We will have affirmative action today.  We will have affirmative action tomorrow.  We will have affirmative action forever." Shades of George Wallace and his proclamation about racial segregation! 

The need for “diversity” in the student body and in other areas of life in Michigan was the centerpiece of the campaign against MCRI; and the electorate rejected the argument.

Eighth: Once again, the proponents of race preferences demonstrated how well disciplined they were in their defense of affirmative action. Although various interests and organizations clearly had different objectives, they suppressed their differences and stayed on message in pursuit of their goal: to defeat MCRI. No lie was too big for them. Even church leaders stretched the truth in an effort to arouse their flock. The pro-preference crowd constitutes what is tantamount to a national “diversity” industry; and it is formidable. Although the MCRI campaign was badly outnumbered, and lacked the equivalent of a national “movement,” there were elements of support that proved to be critical – Dusty Rhodes and National Review Online, conservative talk radio, Roger Clegg and the Center for Equal Opportunity, the Center for Individual Rights, and several major donors including Robert Browne, Dan Cook, Virginia Mannheimer, Ned McCune, Joseph Schulman, Paul Singer and John Uhlmann.  

Ninth: It was Ronald Reagan who created the political doctrine - known as the “Eleventh Commandment” - that “thou shall not speak ill of other Republicans.” President Reagan, however, never lived to meet some of today’s Republicans, especially those running for office in Michigan. Had he done so, I believe he would not have been so charitable in his counsel.

Republicans who head for the tall grass whenever the issue of race preferences presents itself are different only to a small degree from Democrats who demagogue the issue. Those of us who believe in certain principles and consider ourselves conservatives often make the tragic mistake of equating our conservatism with being a Republican. Those are not interchangeable terms. On matters of profound principle, such as equality, freedom and liberty, any Republican who does not support those principles deserves to be criticized for his or her position. For us to do otherwise is to betray our responsibility to defend and protect our nation and to preserve and pass along to future generations a nation fit for them to live in.

Throughout the MCRI campaign, there were countless Republicans in the WolverineState who were quick to cover themselves in the swaddling clothes of Ronald Reagan but opposed MCRI on some of the most specious of grounds. Reagan defined and represented what it meant to be a Republican; and running away from basic American values was not one of his characteristics. He was bold about his views; he did not triangulate.  

Far too many Republicans have essentially abandoned the core principle of individual rights. Aligned with the far left, the race advocates, and other “diversicrats” in opposition to MCRI were the Republican gubernatorial candidate, *** DeVos, the GOP U.S. Senate candidate, the chairman of the Michigan Republican Party and virtually every Republican candidate for office in that state. Fortunately, their explanations weren’t credible: MCRI was “divisive”; it would result in a lot of “hidden, unintended consequences”; and the initiative posed a threat to single-sex schools, of which there were none in Michigan.    

I grieved especially because of the opposition from DeVos - a very decent man who has contributed so much to our nation. DeVos is a champion of the school choice movement. At the heart of school choice policies is the belief that the lives of poor black kids would be radically improved if their parents were empowered to make a choice about where their kids will go to school. One would think that those who believe in empowering Americans to improve their lives would be supportive of all efforts that strengthen individuals instead of making them reliant on the government and others for their success in American life.

DeVos gave the proponents of race preferences political cover by enabling them to say, “Even the Republicans oppose this divisive initiative.” They laughed behind his back at the fact that they had plucked him away from the pro-MCRI camp; and then they voted for his opponent. The unspoken deal to be ambivalent or opposed to ending race preferences in order to look “compassionate” is another one of those lemon cars that Republican candidates buy all the time. 

DeVos' rationale was what liberals call "social equity." If "the playing field" is not "level" in venue A, then the government is expected to make up for it in venue B.  If inner city Detroit kids who are black and poor are not able to attend good quality schools in their neighborhoods, the University of Michigan is expected to compensate by giving all black kids throughout the nation, including those from wealthy families, preferential treatment when they apply to UM so that "the playing field" is leveled.

For me, my duty is to my family, my nation and future generations.  If I can ignore the demand for racial solidarity by publicly criticizing blacks and airing the “dirty laundry” of “the race” for not accepting the full obligations and responsibility of American citizenship, it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to then allow myself to be a slave to the “11^th Commandment” by giving my political party a pass for its moral transgressions regarding the issue of how Americans are to be treated by their government. And, I am not a slave, nor shall I ever be.

Our freedom is threatened anytime the government intervenes to restrict an individual’s rights.  Preferences go to the heart of American citizenship. How one is treated by one’s government is the crux of freedom and distinguishes our system of government and the kind of society that we are in relation to other societies around the world. How can we look the other way when someone is depriving Americans of their right to equal treatment before the law? Is party allegiance more important than the kind of life my grandchildren will have and the kind of nation that we bequeath to them?

These are the questions that have haunted me for past few years as I have struggled in Michigan and listened to the blather about “compassionate conservatism.” It is neither “compassionate” nor “conservative” to consign generations of black kids to the hell of dependency based on the false notion of “leveling the playing field.” Maintaining the crutch of their status as victims of American life only cripples them further. For us not to tell our fellow Republicans that fact is to contradict all that we profess to be and to leave these kids at risk. 

We do not help Bill Cosby, Juan Williams, the people at “Project 21,” and other blacks who are being hammered as “sellouts” and “Uncle Toms,” because of their efforts to foster a greater sense of personal responsibility among black people, by continuing programs based on the policy presumption that black people are victims who need “affirmative action.” If DeVos wants to help the inner city kid in Detroit, give that kid confidence in himself and in his country, give him financial help based on his economic condition and not his “race,” and give him the tough love that commands him to lead a productive life by studying hard, staying in school, graduating from high school, going to college or getting a job, and otherwise leading a law-abiding life. Reassure that kid that he lives in a country where, with few exceptions, he can rely on his fellow Americans to treat him fairly. Give him reason to trust his society rather than reinforcing the view that he hears ad nauseum from the likes of the NAACP, Al Sharpton and others that he is a victim living in a nation of “institutional racists.”

Tenth, the significance of the victory in Michigan cannot be overstated. Even one of the major opponents of the initiative has described it as “the beginning of the end of affirmative action.” I concur with that assessment – and contend that the time is now to deliver the coup de grace. It is for this reason that Dusty Rhodes, John Uhlmann, Johnny Zamrzla (Directors of the American Civil Rights Coalition) and I have announced our intention to conduct a “Super Tuesday for Equality” election in November 2008. This election will allow the electorate in several states to simultaneously vote on the issue of race preferences. Victories in these states – yet to be announced – along with a hoped-for favorable Supreme Court decision in the Louisville and Seattle cases now pending before the Court will place our nation back on track to the realization of our guarantee of equal treatment to all Americans by their government.

Finally, while I have received more than my share of applause for the victory in Michigan, our nation owes a profound debt of gratitude to Jennifer Gratz, a young woman who, at the age of 19, knew that race preferences were wrong and had the courage to challenge such practices at the University of Michigan (UM). Nor must we forget Carl Cohen, a philosophy professor at UM who has consistently ignored political correctness on his liberal campus and fought valiantly for the institution that he loves to eliminate its preferential policies. And, finally, when other politicians were running for cover, State Representative Leon Drolet placed his political career on the line by supporting MCRI. 

For much of the 20^th century, our nation was engaged in a tumultuous struggle over the issue of “civil rights.” This struggle was prompted by the fact that black people had been denied the right to equal treatment, despite the proclamation that “all men are created equal” in the eyes of our government. It was appropriate for President John F. Kennedy to sign an Executive Order in 1961 to promote “affirmative action” as a means of ensuring that every American would be treated equally “without regard” to race, color or creed. It was not the purpose of that Executive Order to simply substitute one group for another in the discrimination game.

Over the years, throughout America, governments at all levels have evolved a system of “affirmative action” that systematically discriminates against American citizens because of their race and skin color instead of treating them equally “without regard” to those factors. Instead of “civil rights” being expanded to include black people, the term has been redefined to exclude whites and, often, Asians in academic settings.