Jeremiah Wright: Full Context of Remarks on YouTube

Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright has been the focus of extraordinarily unfair criticism this week for certain statements made during sermons.

It happens that the news organizations selected statements of Rev. Wright that were dramatic and removed the context of his statements in his sermon.

The fortunate thing about the Internet is that it provides a medium for research and discussion. There is a site on YouTube that now provides the part of the sermon that gives context to Rev. Wright’s statements that were displayed on the news programs.

Here is the sermon that includes Rev. Wright’s “God Damn America” statement with the other part of Rev. Wright’s sermon that provides context for his remarks.

There are other videos at the YouTube site for Trinity Chicago that also provide context for Rev. Wright’s televised comments.

For example, Rev. Wright in speaking of the chickens coming home to roost was actually referring to a statement made by an ambassador featured on a Fox News program.

The condemnation of Rev. Wright is unwarranted and unfair.

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Arizona): Columnist Questions Need for Initiative Drive

Anne Denogean, a columnist for the Tucson Citizen, argues that the ACRI initiative drive in Arizona is not necessary (click here for the column).

[...] [T]his is an initiative designed to tap into the anger of Anglo men who feel victimized by the system - even though nobody but a white male has ever been president, even though white males make up the majority of CEOs, and even though white males as a group enjoy greater earning power than any other group in America.

This proposal would be bad for Arizona. It is divisive (just what we don’t need in a state torn asunder by the immigration debate) and unnecessary.

Preferences are not widely used in Arizona’s state or local governments, nor does granting them mean that qualified white males are being passed over for positions, contracts or admission to state universities in favor of unqualified women or minorities. [...]

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Arizona): Ballot Initiative Proposal Filed with Arizona’s Secretary of State

The Arizona Republic reported that the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) has proposed a ballot initiative in Arizona. The language (in The Arizona Republic’s article (right column)) is the same as in the initiative proposals in other states (for more information, click on the affirmative action category in the right column).

The Arizona Secretary of State has the technical information about ACRI’s ballot initiative proposal (the petition serial number is C-17-2008).

In the article, Ward Connerly is optimistic about the initiative’s success.

Without sounding arrogant or pompous, I think it will pass decisively,” said Connerly, who is African-American.

Connerly is optimistic because Arizona has a population that is overwhelmingly White, thus the likelihood of approval is high.

Arizona (population: 5,130,632 (2000 Census) [NOTE: high number of "some other race"])

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.5%	3,873,611
Black	3.1	158,873
Native American	5.0	255,879
Asian	1.8	92,236

Related Post Script

I do not believe it is accurate to consider Ward Connerly as a Black person. In an article, Connerly has described himself as 25% Black.

Connerly has stated he is one-quarter Black, three-eighths Irish, one-quarter French and one-eighth Choctaw.

The inference from his statement is that he is primarily White and Native American.

Update (11/8/2007): In response to a blogger’s post and comment I received, the description of Mr. Connerly is far from a “blood quantum” or “purity test.” It is a summation of how Mr. Connerly described himself in a 1997 New York Times article (click here for the article).

Again, Mr. Connerly describes his background as being minimally Black (1/4) as compared to the rest of the descriptors in his own statement: Irish and French (White) (4/ and Choctaw (1/4).

Here is another interesting quote in the same article (emphasis mine):

Mr. Connerly considers himself black ”because blackness is an experience and others have thrust that experience upon me.” He, on the other hand, claims to be not only blind to pigment but a celebrator of the continuous blending in the melting pot. ”In 10 to 15 years, intermarriage will make this entire debate a moot one, anyhow, and we’ll wonder why we didn’t see it coming,” he said.

Mr. Connerly states that the descriptor Black is forced on him, but he does not view himself like that. This is a point that even the blogger concedes:

[...]Ward’s multi-racial status (and he’ll call himself that before he calls himself black, but that’s not the point [...]

In fact, it is the point. Thus, to be fair to Mr. Connerly, given his self-description, it may not be accurate to call him Black as that description ignores the rest (75%) of his heritage (as he defines it).

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Missouri): Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan Sets Ballot Title; MoCRI Files Suit

On July 19, 2007, Robin Carnahan, Missouri’s Secretary of State, set the ballot title for Missouri’s version of the American Civil Rights Institute’s ballot initiative (ACRI’s affiliate group in Missouri for the purpose of the ballot initiative is the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative Committee (MoCRI)).

The official ballot title as set by Secretary Carnahan is below:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and
• allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?

The total cost or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs or savings, however, costs or savings related to future contracts are unknown. Some local governments estimate no costs or savings, but prohibition of certain municipal policies may result in unknown costs.

ACRI’s ballot initiative, if it receives sufficient votes to prevail, would amend the Missouri Constitution to prohibit discrimination against and the granting of preferential treatment to persons on the basis of basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. ACRI’s language is similar to the ACRI’s proposal to amend Colorado’s constitution (click the affirmative action link in the TAGS box in the sidebar on the right to see my posts on ACRI’s campaign in Colorado).
The executive director of the MoCRI, Tim Asher, objects to the ballot title set by Secretary Carnahan. Asher believes the ballot title should be:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state by declaring:

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

Disagreeing with Secretary Carnahan’s ballot title summary language, Asher, for MoCRI, filed a lawsuit (case number: 07AC-CC0064 in Missouri’s Cole County Circuit Court.

Court case: Missouri Against Human Cloning v. Robin Carnahan

There is a 2006 Missouri Court of Appeals decision that is close to Asher’s ballot title challenge (Author’s Note: Asher nor Secretary Carnahan have not issued their arguments for the case yet (on the date of this post)).

In Missourians Against Human Cloning, et al., Appellants v. Robin Carnahan, WD66495 & WD66496, (3/28/2006), the authors of an initiative on human cloning, appealing the Cole County’s Circuit Court’s approval of Secretary Carnahan’s ballot title, challenged the ballot title set by Secretary Carnahan, stating that the summary statement of the ballot title was “insufficient or unfair”. The initiative authors challenged the summary’s statement that the initiative would ban human cloning or attempted cloning. The authors asked the court to amend the statement with language provided by the initiative authors.

The Missouri Court of Appeals stated that courts are cautious about entering into pre-election debates on initiative proposals. The Missouri Court of Appeals also stated that the burden falls on the challengers of the ballot title to prove that the ballot title is “insufficient or unfair.” The Missouri Court of Appeals explained that the purpose of the ballot title is to notify interested persons of the subject of the initiative.

Our role is not to act as a political arbiter between opposing viewpoints in the initiative process:

When courts are called upon to intervene in the initiative process, they must act with restraint, trepidation . . . .. . . .Courts are understandably reluctant to become involved in pre-election debates over initiative proposals. Courts do not sit in judgment on the wisdom or folly of proposals.

Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt, 799 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Mo. banc 1990). “Before the people vote on an initiative, courts may consider only those threshold issues that affect the integrity of the election itself, and that are so clear as to constitute a matter of form.” United Gamefowl Breeders Ass’n of Mo. v. Nixon, 19 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Mo. banc 2000).

The burden is on the opponents of a summary statement to show that the language is “insufficient and unfair.” Hancock[v. Sec'y of State, 885 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994)], 885 S.W.2d at 49. We have previously defined “insufficient or unfair”:

Insufficient means “inadequate; especially lacking adequate power, capacity, or competence.” The word “unfair” means to be “marked by injustice, partiality, or deception.” Thus, the words insufficient and unfair . . . mean to inadequately and with bias, prejudice, deception and/or favoritism state the [consequences of the initiative].

Id. (citations omitted). The purpose of the ballot title “is to give interested persons notice of the subject of a proposed [law] to prevent deception through use of misleading titles. If the title gives adequate notice, the requirement is satisfied.” Union Elec. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 606 S.W.2d 658, 660 (Mo. banc 1980).

The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the Cole County Circuit Court’s decision to approve Secretary Carnahan’s ballot title’s summary statement. The Missouri Court of Appeals stated that the test for appropriate ballot title summary language is not whether the Secretary of State’s language is the best language but rather “whether the language fairly and impartially summarizes the purposes of the [initiative.]” Bergman[v. Mills, 988 S.W.2d 84(Mo. App. W.D. 1999)], 988 S.W.2d at 92. Within the confines of the 100-word limit, the summary “need not set out the details of the proposal.” United Gamefowl Breeders Ass’n of Mo., 19 S.W.3d at 141.”

Possible effect on Asher’s Challenge

My review is cursory because Asher’s argument has not been presented, but based on this case, Secretary Carnahan has a good chance to survive Asher’s ballot title challenge. The ballot title that Asher proposes is the first clause of his group’s proposed amendment to Missouri’s Constitution. Asher’s ballot title summary language is vague and does not describe what MoCRI’s initiative would do if approved by the voters.

The purpose of MoCRI’s initiative is really what Secretary Carnahan’s ballot title summary language stated.

The Asher v Carnahan case is an interesting. I hope to see the arguments of the parties and the decision of the court.

ACRI’s Ballot Initiative: Nebraska

It seems that Ward Connerly’s Sacramento, California based American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) wants to target several states for its campaign to end “racial preferences” in state government. The states are: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.

I find it difficult to imagine that non-Whites are receiving “preferences” over Whites. Government action is necessary to guarantee that non-Whites maintain their ability to live with dignity as equal human beings. To see what happens in the absence of government action, see a report from the Brennan Center for Justice.

My goal is to address each state that the ACRI is targeting. The first state I will address is Nebraska.

Nebraska does not appear to have an issue requiring this ballot initiative due to Nebraska’s demographic makeup. According to the 2000 Census fact sheet for Nebraska, Whites constitute an overwhelming majority of state residents.

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	89.6%	1,533,261
African-American/Black	4.0	68,541
Asian	0.9	14,896
Native American	1.3	21,931

Similarly, the universities in Nebraska have small numbers of non-White students. The same is true for Nebraska societal institutions. For example, there is only one Black legislator in the Nebraska Unicameral. That legislator is Senator Ernie Chambers (I-Omaha).

Thus, the initiative really is a foul demonstration of majority power not necessary. But given the demographic reality, I predict the initiative’s success (should the initiative make it onto the ballot).