E-mail a friendKimberlé Williams Crenshaw
original airdate April 7, 2008
A respected scholar on law and race, professor Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw splits her time between the UCLA and Columbia law schools. The Harvard alum co-founded the African American Policy Forum and was a founding member of the Women's Media Initiative. She also facilitated workshops for civil rights activists in Brazil and constitutional court judges in South Africa. Crenshaw recently wrote an article in the winter issue of Ms on how civil rights language has been used to try to halt affirmative action.
UCLA Law Professor addresses the presidential candidates' support of affirmative action programs. (3:18)
Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw
Tavis: Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw is a professor of law at UCLA and Columbia, and the executive director of the African American Policy Forum. She's the author of a piece in the current issue of "Ms." magazine called "A Preference for Deception: Ward Connerly Steals the Language of Civil Rights to Halt Affirmative Action." Professor Crenshaw, nice to have you on the program.
Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw: It's a pleasure to be here, Tavis.
Tavis: It's almost - it's fascinating - maybe that's the wrong word, but it's fascinating to me that this conversation has not gotten more traction; that is to say, the conversation about affirmative action. I'll let you explain it, but there are five states that Ward Connerly has gone to, a la what he did here in California and Michigan, to try to wipe out affirmative action.
I suspect because of all the hype around the nominees, specifically on the Democratic side, Clinton and Obama, this conversation hasn't gotten much traction. But I thought it was important to have a conversation about it tonight because this is an important issue. We'll talk in a moment where the candidates stand on the issue, but tell me about what's happening that we haven't really been talking about lately because of our focus on the campaign rather than this proposition.
Crenshaw: Well Tavis, this is actually a 12-year campaign that's been advanced by Ward Connerly and various of his supporters to eliminate affirmative action state by state. They've been pretty unsuccessful at the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court has consistently voted to uphold affirmative action, so they've decided to take an end run around the Supreme Court and go directly to the voters.
As you know, in California some 12 years ago, California voters voted to eliminate affirmative action. Here's what's so problematic about it: the media generally haven't really been good at reporting on this issue. They tend to see this as an African American businessman who just has a moral opposition against affirmative action. They might consider it ideological, but they don't really go behind the scenes and see what this is about.
What this is about and what "Ms." has uncovered is that Ward Connerly is actually an advocate, a lobbyist for some of the major construction industrialists, other contracting associations, who have consistently opposed affirmative action. He gets his money from them, they back the efforts, and as a consequence of this most people don't really understand this isn't really about unqualified African Americans, which is the way affirmative action always gets viewed, it's about dollars.
Here in California alone, when anti-affirmative action legislation was passed, minority and women-owned businesses lost $1.4 billion of businesses in one state program alone. So this doesn't get traction because people aren't really looking to see what the issue is. That's why we wanted to bring attention to it and we wanted to talk about the deception, calling this an American civil rights initiative and using deceptive practices to get people to vote for it.
Tavis: Let's set aside whatever particular interests, plural, that Ward Connerly might have in this measure being passed in these five states. Let's talk about the five states and whether or not, I assume it is, this is the same measure that he passed here in California.
Crenshaw: Yes, it's the same measure that he passed here in California. It also passed in Washington State. Just last year it passed in Michigan. So now they're going to Arizona and Colorado and Missouri and Nebraska and Oklahoma, trying to put this measure on the ballot. Now what he has to do is collect enough signatures in order to put it on the ballot, and there is where a lot of the fraud and deception is coming in.
A federal district court in Michigan found that there was a well-established pattern of fraud and deception. What is this? Telling voters if you support affirmative action, if you support equal opportunity, sign this ballot initiative. One person, Ruthie Jackson, she is the director of the NAACP. She actually signed this petition - well actually, she was asked to sign the petition and she almost did so until the person said, "Well, the president of the NAACP is supporting this."
And she said, "Wait a minute, I'm the president of the NAACP." So they're targeting African American, other voters, they're telling them this is all about ending discrimination, when in fact it's about ending the most significant programs that were put in place to end discrimination.
Tavis: So as we sit here tonight, what is the likelihood that he will qualify this in all five of these states?
Crenshaw: Well there's some really good news. In Oklahoma they have recently filed to withdraw the petition because the say no to the canvassing campaign has actually seemed to have worked. In fact, it's been revealed that a lot of these signatures are fraudulent signatures, some people have signed it five, 10 times, sometimes 80 people are living at the same address.
So there's an effort to push back that's proved to be successful. So far it looks like it'll probably be on the Colorado state initiative, and it's still in the process of signature-gathering in all the other states.
Tavis: And what's your sense of this 12-year, state-by-state process to end affirmative action in terms of what happens once it gets on the ballot? I don't want to say so on national television, because I happen to be a supporter of affirmative action, but it seems to me that once this thing qualifies and gets on the ballot, the evidence suggests that it tends to pass.
Crenshaw: It's been difficult to fight and it's been difficult to fight because number one, the measures do not use the term affirmative action. They use very deceptive language saying that this is meant to eliminate preference and discrimination. Well for a lot of people of color who've been locked out because of nepotism, the old boy's networks, when they see preference, they see traditional discrimination.
Are you against that? Yes. So those people will vote yes. A lot of White voters, when they hear the term preference they think quota, right? So they vote against that, even though quotas have been unconstitutional for more than 20 years. So it's a really difficult notion to really challenge, because there are so many people who think preference is what affirmative action is either meant to solve or they think preference is a quota. So it's difficult.
Tavis: We just returned, as you know, from Memphis last week, we did this entire show from Memphis last week, a wonderful week of shows, at least from our perspective, a chance to actually situation many of these contemporary conversations 40 years after King's assassination. Let me ask you, before I talk about where the candidates - that would be Clinton, Obama, and McCain - stand on this issue in this year's presidential elections. Help me situate this debate, this conversation about affirmative action 40 years after King's assassination.
Crenshaw: Well, I'm sure Dr. King would probably be the most shocked of all of us to find that his name, his image, his words have basically been used to attack a program that he actually supported and supported very strongly. But this is what makes this a Trojan horse kind of campaign. People wrap themselves up in the language of civil rights, which is very confusing to the people who marched under the banner of civil rights.
In the old days, if you opposed civil rights you came out and said so. If you opposed Title VII, you came out and said so. Nowadays, if you oppose it, you form an organization called the American Civil Rights Institute. You use language from the "I Have a Dream" speech. You tell people, inaccurately, that this is about continuing Dr. King's dream rather than a nightmare for Dr. King.
So we've lost, in some sense, the rhetorical high ground, because people have been able to successfully persuade people that Martin Luther King was opposed to affirmative action. The fact of the matter is he did support it. The fact of the matter is this is not a civil rights campaign. This is anything but. The fact is, these are not people who are just ideologically opposed.
These are people who have financial interests in opposing these important policies. So what we're fighting for right now is just opportunity. These are outreach programs. These are requirements that you let people know that there's a bid going on. These are programs to train people for science and math and technology.
These are not about quotas, but because the media have misrepresented it over and over again, they use the language of preference when they're talking about affirmative action, they don't talk about removing barriers and obstacles. They just talk about a head start in a way that distorts the debate.
Tavis: Give me top line on where Clinton stands on this, where Obama stands on this, and where McCain stands on this.
Crenshaw: Well formally, as far as one can infer from the statements that have been made, the two Democratic nominees seem to support affirmative action. We know that Senator Obama, for example, made a very, very strong statement against the Supreme Court decision that came out a few months ago against the use of race in maintaining integrated schools.
We have the reason to believe the same with respect to Senator Clinton, and in particular women have benefited the most from affirmative action. So it's really a challenge because -
Tavis: And White women specifically.
Crenshaw: And White women specifically. Now this is the irony of the situation, Tavis. Every other group that benefits from affirmative action - African Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, they all vote consistently in favor of affirmative action. The only group that directly benefits that doesn't tend to vote for affirmative action has been White women. So it's a real challenge for her, since she relies so much on that constituency.
Tavis: Since this piece is in the current issue of "Ms." magazine, that a lot of White women read -
Crenshaw: That's right.
Tavis: - let me read into - ask you to read into why that is the case.
Crenshaw: Yeah. Well there are a couple of reasons. Some people think that one of the problems is that White women don't recognize themselves as having benefitted from affirmative action. There's no reason why they might because a lot of the industries - the women in contracting industry, the women in some of the professional and skilled trades, the ones who have the most to lose when these programs are withdrawn generally don't put affirmative action at the top of their list.
So they might not be informed, and that's why "Ms." is to be commended for taking this seriously.
Tavis: Finally, John McCain, to his credit, has been a maverick on so many issues where the standard Republican Party line is held, what do we know about John McCain on this issue?
Crenshaw: Well, I think the real question, Tavis, is whatever we know, will that hold up? Because -
Tavis: Which John McCain shows up.
Crenshaw: Yeah, which John McCain? So I think where he comes out is clearly going to be a matter of where the pollsters are suggesting and whether or not he can tack in a direction that will secure his base in the party. So this is a question of whether you can be a Republican and be for affirmative action.
Tavis: I won't say I suspect, but I certainly hope that as this campaign moves forward we'll start to get some more conversation about where the candidates stand specifically on the issue. I'm glad we got a chance to do it early on.
Crenshaw: Thanks.
Tavis: Always a pleasure to see you.
Crenshaw: Always.
Tavis: Professor Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw of UCLA and Columbia. She's a busy sister.
Back to April 7, 2008