Affirmative
Action Debate Continues In Dueling Dispatches
Reprinted below
are letters exchanged between U.S. Congressman John Dingell (D.
MI) and Mr. Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Coalition.�
We were informed by Mr. Connerly that prior to receiving Rep. Dingell�s
�butt-out� letter, Mr. Connerly had �no direct and personal contact
with the man.�� According to Mr. Connerly, Rep. Dingell �was responding,
without solicitation, to my announcement that I would assist in
trying to qualify for the ballot an initiative much like California�s
209 to eliminate race preferences in Michigan.�
Apparently Rep.
Dingell believes the U.S. Constitution should mean something different
in each state and that American citizens should confine themselves
only to the issues arising within their home state borders.
Congress of
the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-2215
July 9, 2003
Mr. Ward Connerly
American Civil Rights Coalition
P.O. Box 188350
Sacramento, CA 95818
Mr. Connerly:
The people of
Michigan have a simple message to you: go home and stay there.�
We do not need you stirring up trouble where none exists.
Michiganders
do not take kindly to your ignorant meddling in our affairs. We
have no need for itinerant publicity seekers, non-resident troublemakers
or self-aggrandizing out-of-state agitators.� You have created enough
mischief in your own state to last a lifetime.
We reject your
"black vs. white" politics that were long ago discarded
to the ash heap of history.� Your brand of divisive racial politics
has no place in Michigan, or in our society.� So Mr. Connerly, take
your message of hate and fear, division and destruction and leave.�
Go home and stay there, you�re not welcome here.
With every good
wish,
Sincerely yours,
[Signature]
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
July 21, 2003
The Honorable
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515-2215
Congressman
Dingel,
Thank you for
such a warm and hospitable welcome to Michigan.
Amendment I
of the United States Constitution is, in part, as follows:
"Congress
shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,
or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."
Amendment XIV
of the Constitution is, in part, as follows:
"All persons
born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside."
Over the years,
the courts have consistently held that these Amendments, taken together,
grant to all American citizens the right to travel freely, to express
their views, and to participate in the affairs short of exercising
a vote of any village and hamlet in the nation.� For most, this
is so well established as to be beyond question.
Perhaps, you
are unaware that I am an American citizen a distinction from
which I derive the rights and privileges enumerated in the Constitutional
Amendments noted above.�� It is quite clear from your reaction to
the recent decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court
to sanction the use of racial preferences, notwithstanding Amendment
XIV, that you have little regard for that Amendment; so I should
not be surprised that you would also want to deny me the rights
that I enjoy pursuant to the Constitution.
I am obliged
to tell you, Congressman, that I, on the other hand, do believe
in and honor the Constitution of this nation.� And, it confirms
that my right to visit Michigan, as a full-fledged American citizen
and not simply as a tourist, is not contingent on your invitation.�
As a taxpaying U.S. citizen, anywhere I set foot on American soil
is my "home," just as much as it is yours.
If you would
grant me a waiver so that my tax dollars would not be used to support
racial discrimination in the State of Michigan, I would more respectfully
entertain your impudent advice.� Absent that, the term arrogance
does not begin to capture the essence of a United States Congressman
advising an American citizen to refrain from participating in the
affairs of his government.� Ironically, your advice is the echo
of southern segregationists who sought the comfort of states' rights
to practice their discrimination against black Americans. Have you
learned nothing about "civil rights" from that horrible
chapter in our nation's history?
There is such
an eerie similarity between them and you that it bears comment.
Your letter
is a prime example of why the texture of civil discourse in our
nation is so coarse.� It is an indication of why Members of Congress
need the police to intervene to separate them from fighting.� What
a terrible example for our children and our grandchildren.
As a member
of the Congress, I suppose you have the right to send narrow-minded
and venomous letters, at taxpayers' expense, to anyone of your choosing.
But, you ought to be ashamed of telling any American citizen to
"go home and stay there."� How dare you!
By promoting
the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, those of us who believe in
this cause I among them are doing what the Constitution of
Michigan allows; and you should not be seeking to abridge the right
of American citizens to use processes allowed by law to implement
their civic beliefs and values.� Candidly, if you were true to the
oath of office that you have sworn to defend and uphold, you would
not be so content to look the other way while Jennifer Gratz,
Barbara Grutter
and Pat Hamacher were being discriminated against.� You would object
to the Supreme Court's defiance of the simple command of the 1964
Civil Rights Act that all Americans be treated equally "without
regard to race, color or national origin."��
The thought
does not escape me, Congressman and it should not you Either
that some of my tax dollars contribute to your salary.� That
makes me an involuntary constituent of yours.� Therefore, I must
ask, do you treat all of your constituents with such contempt, arrogance
and high-handedness, or do you reserve such treatment for the "uppity"
ones who insist on using their civil rights to participate in public
policymaking?
You say that
I am not welcome in Michigan and that the "people of Michigan"
don�t want me there.� I believe you represent the 15th Congressional
District of Michigan and nothing else.� Longevity has its way of
creating delusions of grandeur, and I believe that has happened
to you.� In addition, I must ask whether you have run your "get
out of town" sermon by the hundreds of other Michiganders who
have called, written and emailed me to come to Michigan and assist
in the restoration of the principle of "equal protection under
the law?"�
You have said
I am "stirring up trouble where none exists."� That certainly
isn�t what I hear from other prominent people in Michigan or what
I have read in the dailies of your state.� And, it is certainly
inconsistent with my observations about Benton Harbor and other
racial circumstances in Michigan? It defies credulity that you could
be so out of touch with your state as to not recognize the racial
tension that lies within, much of which has been engendered by racial
preferences at the University of Michigan.
I note with
great interest that Reverend Jesse Jackson has announced his intention
to open an office of his Rainbow Coalition in Benton Harbor.� Would
you please be kind enough to send me a copy of your letter to him
demanding that he "go home and stay there."� I understand
that he is also a non-resident of Michigan.
Since you so
proudly posted your letter to me on your website, I trust that you
will do the same with my response.
With equally
good wishes.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
Ward Connerly
[Posted
July 22, 2003]
Return
to Current Events
Index
|