New TV Ad Exposes Ward Connerly as Affirmative Action Profiteer

The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center today launched a new TV ad in Colorado and Nebraska highlighting how Ward Connerly has personally profited off his efforts to re-write state constitutions with his misleadingly named "civil rights" ballot initiatives.

BISC also launched a new website on Wednesday, BigMoneyConnerly.com, which is the most comprehensive one-stop shop for research and information on Connerly and his campaign. The new ad can also be seen on the website.

“Ward Connerly has used voter fraud and deception to place his initiatives on the ballot and profited off a campaign to outlaw equal opportunity,” said Kristina Wilfore, Executive Director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, “Today we are revealing the truth and exposing Connerly and his campaign as a fraud.”

Based on available information from the 990 forms filed by Connerly with the IRS, between 1997 and 2006, Connerly has lined his own pockets with over $7.6 million from his two tax exempt, non-profit organizations; American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), 501(c)3, and American Civil Rights Coalition (ACRC), 501(c)4.

This includes over $500,000 in salary from 2004 to mid-2006 and $2.2 million in payments that Connerly paid himself for “speaking fees and interviews.”

Connerly’s excessive compensation levels from his tax-exempt, non-profit organizations have raised questions in Congress about their propriety and in 2006 the IRS was asked to investigate.

The most recent issue of The American Conservative recently revealed that, “In 1998, 22 percent of his nonprofits’ revenue was paid to Connerly in salary or to his firm. By 2001, Connerly’s salary and the fees charged by Connerly and Associates ate up 49 percent of the nonprofits’ combined revenue. Most of the money paid to the firm was listed on tax forms as “speaking fees.” In 2006, when Connerly took up a concrete goal in political activism—ending Michigan’s affirmative-action policies—the cut of nonprofit revenue paid to him and his firm rose to 66 percent of total receipts, nearly $1.6 million.”

The American Conservative also reported, “An IRS spokesman said that he could not comment on a case under investigation.”

The TV ad also exposes the hypocrisy of Connerly’s campaign to outlaw equal opportunity programs. From 1989 to 1994 Connerly used his own race to land no bid contracts worth over a million dollars. Connerly repeatedly enlisted as a minority contractor with the California Energy Commission -- securing contracts for his Sacramento lobbying firm without having competitive bidding. By certifying with the commission's special race-based program, Connerly helped guarantee his firm three separate contracts -- one for $1.1 million in 1989, a second for $105,227 in 1992, and another for $35,000 in 1994, according to the records. The contracts were filed under the name of California Building Officials, an association that lists Connerly as its sole agent.

Connerly, a long time California lobbyist, targeted five states this year with his misleadingly named “civil rights” ballot initiative - Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma. His campaign has faced charges of fraud and deception in every state and as a result he failed to qualify for the ballot in Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Connerly has spent over $2.8 in out-of-state funding to re-write state constitutions with his ballot initiative.

Calif. Supreme Court Rejects Richard Sander Request for Confidential Bar Exam Data

UPDATE (SEPT. 19): There was an error in the commentary we included in our Sept. 18 email about the California Supreme Court's denial of the lawsuit against the State Bar of California brought by UCLA Law professor Richard Sander and the California First Amendment Coalition. (The commentary was published today on the Los Angeles Times website.)

The commentary inadvertently cited the Scaife Foundation as supporting  Sander's research. Sander is conducting his research through a consortium called Project SEAPHE, which received funding from the Searle Freedom Trust, a foundation that also funds Right-wing groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society and the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The relationship between Sander's research and the Searle Freedom Trust was reported by The Chornicle of Higher Education in a Jan. 18, 2008, article, "Scholars Mount Sweeping Effort to Measure Effects of Affirmative Action in Higher Education."

We also mentioned the grant was for $1 million. That was also incorrect. The amount is actually $1.2 million. Indiana University School of Law professor William D. Henderson lists on his CV his role as the study's co-principal investigator and a $1.2 million grant from the Searle Freedom Trust.

The California Supreme Court yesterday denied the request by UCLA Law professor Richard Sander and the California First Amendment Coalition. The petition for writ of review was denied without prejudice to re-file in an appropriate court.

EJS also yesterday submitted the following op-ed to the Los Angeles Times in response to its editorial published the same day.

Bar Exam Data Debate About Privacy, Not Affirmative Action
By Anthony Solana, Jr. and Sara Jackson

A Sept. 17 Times editorial characterizes a UCLA law professor’s request for the confidential data of state bar exam takers as a debate over affirmative action.

Proponents of equal opportunity do not fear Prof. Richard Sander’s hypothesis that affirmative action puts Black law students in institutions where they are doomed to fail. Our opposition to his specific request for bar exam data is rooted in the protection of exam takers’ privacy and compliance with the law.

The Times editorial dismisses these concerns as “spurious” and then provides no explanation to support that view. Instead the Times advances Sander’s and the California First Amendment Coalition’s attempts to convert this into a controversy over affirmative action because their anti-privacy arguments have no merit.

For example, Sander wants exam takers’ undergraduate and law school GPA, LSAT as well as bar scores – even though individuals who take the bar cannot access these scores themselves.

The State Bar cannot disclose information provided by exam applicants, irrespective of its relevance in a public policy debate, because state and federal law precludes its disclosure absent consent. One’s private records do not become public records, accessible to anyone, simply because a person applies to take a state exam and becomes part of a database.

It is on these legal grounds that the State Bar Board of Governors voted unanimously to deny Sander’s request and why many prominent lawyers support the Bar’s protection of bar exam takers data. In a Nov. 7, 2007, letter to the State Bar president and chair of the Bar’s Regulations, Admissions & Discipline Committee, 28 lawyers and leaders of bar organizations, both local and statewide, wrote:

“The State Bar holds the confidential information of Bar applicants in trust. It is not at liberty to divulge these applicants’ confidential information because they have a right to privacy in this information and a right to due process with respect to its disclosure.”

Sander's research design solves neither the problem of consent nor the problem of privacy. Given the current demographic makeup of many of California’s top law schools, simply removing names and other identifying characteristics does not ensure the confidentiality of all applicants.

At UC Berkeley and UCLA Law Schools, several classes have had 10 or fewer Black students since the adoption of Proposition 209. Small numbers of Black students in a class are typical of some private law schools as well. Under such circumstances, even “anonymized” data can still render persons easily traceable, and in such cases the law prohibits disclosure of academic records without consent.

As Dean Larry Kramer of Stanford Law School stated in a letter to the State Bar on this issue last year: “[t]he use of these records envisioned by the Sander team would violate FERPA [the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974].”

The disclosure of such educational records presents a serious legal question, not fairly characterized as “spurious.”

And to the extent that the issue of political motivation or orthodoxy is invoked, it surely should be considered with respect to all sides. After all, Sander’s research is funded by a $1 $1.2 million grant from the conservative Scaife Foundation Searle Freedom Trust and enjoys the full support of all of the conservatives now in control of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, including Gail Heriot—one of the authors of Proposition 209.

That Sander has a right to advocate his position is undeniable. He doesn’t have the right to acquire personal and confidential information of bar exam takers when the law mandates otherwise.

Anthony Solana, Jr., is president and chairperson of For People of Color, Inc. Sara Jackson is the Equal Justice Society Judge Constance Baker Motley Civil Rights Fellow. For more information on this issue, visit www.equaljusticesociety.org.

National Council of La Raza's New WeCanStopTheHate.org

A revamped website launched today by the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) documents how hate groups in the U.S. have been reenergized by the immigration debate and how the growing intolerance fanned by these groups is leading to a record increase in hate crimes against Latinos.

The website, WeCanStopTheHate.org, spotlights hate in the immigration debate with analyses of the leading groups, spokespeople, and media allies of the anti-immigrant movement.  

 

“Given that dozens of anti-immigrant talk show hosts and organizations have descended on Capitol Hill this week, it is especially important that information on what these entities are really all about is readily available to those interested in combating intolerance,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO.  “Regardless of how one feels about immigration policy, we can all agree that a hate-filled debate is not acceptable.”

 

The website, originally launched in January of this year, has been redesigned to make it easier for visitors and users to find information, obtain the latest updates, and learn how to get involved.  Its features include an extensive library of videos on the links between anti-immigrant and extremist organizations throughout the country; fact sheets on, among other topics, the code words of hate used in the debate and the most prominent media spokespeople from these anti-immigrant and extremist groups; and frequently updated posts, called “The Latest,” on incidents of hate in the media, from policymakers and others.

Privacy, Not Political Correctness: Ideology, Not Science, Behind Richard Sander Request for Confidential Bar Exam Data

EJS submitted the following commentary by Anthony Solana, Jr. and Sara Jackson in response to an opinion piece written by Peter Scheer of the California First Amendment Coalition.  CFAC has joined UCLA Law professor Richard Sander in a lawsuit demanding that the State Bar of California turn over confidential data on state bar exam takers for research by Sander that has been roundly criticized.  CFAC published this piece on their site.

Peter Scheer's Aug. 20 commentary defended a suit by Sander and CFAC against the State Bar to obtain the academic records and exam scores of applicants to the Bar.  Sander wants exam takers' undergraduate and law school GPA, LSAT as well as bar scores - even though individuals who take the bar cannot access these scores themselves.

Scheer claims that the decision of the State Bar to deny access to these records was motivated by "political correctness."  Since the initial request from Sander was tied to his controversial research asserting that affirmative action puts Black law students in institutions where they are doomed to fail, objections to the release of the data are summarily dismissed as reflecting a benighted adherence to liberal orthodoxy.

Obscured by the charges of "political correctness" is the paramount legal issue Sander's request presents: privacy.  The information provided to the Bar by exam applicants cannot be disclosed by the Bar, irrespective of its relevance in a public policy debate, because state and federal law precludes its disclosure absent consent.

When applicants to the bar applied to take the exam, they were asked to provide personal information on the Bar's promise that it would be used only for specific and limited purposes: to determine whether an applicant met the requirements to sit for the Bar and for the Bar's own internal studies.

This express limited written consent does not authorize the Bar to give this highly confidential information to anyone without permission.  Because the Bar made this promise it is legally and morally bound to keep it.

Federal law protects the privacy of these educational records as well.  One's private records do not become public records, accessible to anyone, simply because a person applies to take a state exam and becomes part of a database.

It is on these legal grounds that many prominent lawyers support the Bar's protection of bar exam takers data.  In a Nov. 7, 2007, letter to the State Bar president and chair of the Bar's Regulations, Admissions & Discipline Committee, 28 lawyers and leaders of bar organizations, both local and statewide, wrote:

"The State Bar holds the confidential information of Bar applicants in trust.  It is not at liberty to divulge these applicants' confidential information because they have a right to privacy in this information and a right to due process with respect to its disclosure."

Sander's research design solves neither the problem of consent nor the problem of privacy.  Given the current demographic makeup of many of California's top law schools, simply removing names and other identifying characteristics does not ensure the confidentiality of all applicants.  For example, at UC Berkeley and UCLA Law Schools several classes have had 10 or fewer Black students since the adoption of Proposition 209.  Small numbers of Black students in a class are typical of some private law schools as well.  Under such circumstances, even "anonymized" data can still render persons easily traceable, and in such cases the law prohibits disclosure of academic records without consent.  

 

As Dean Larry Kramer of Stanford Law School stated in a letter to the State Bar on this issue last year: "[t]he use of these records envisioned by the Sander team would violate FERPA [the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974]."

At the very least, the foregoing indicates that the disclosure of these educational records presents a serious legal question, not fairly characterized as a matter of "political correctness."

And to the extent that the issue of political motivation or orthodoxy is invoked, it surely  should be considered with respect to all sides.  After all, Sander's research is funded by a $1 $1.2 million grant from the conservative Scaife Foundation Searle Freedom Trust (update: read correction here) and enjoys the full support of all of the conservatives now in control of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, including Gail Heriot-one of the authors of Proposition 209.  At no point in Scheer's commentary are these facts mentioned.

 

Nor does Scheer mention the fact that there have been numerous scholarly criticisms by leading social scientists and legal scholars challenging the methodological integrity of Sander's work, and raising the question of whether he has proven his claims.   The questions raised are particularly important since it is unclear the extent to which any of Sander's articles on this topic were peer-reviewed and none of them is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Sander's unsuccessful effort to obtain National Science Foundation funding for this project also raises questions about its methodological soundness.  According to some reviewers (whose evaluations were published on Sander's website), Sander's mismatch hypothesis cannot reasonably be tested by analyzing the bar scores of Black and Latino test takers.  

Sander's research conclusions largely remain uncorroborated.  According to one researcher, since Sander's article on the mismatch theory was published almost four years ago,  "I have been unable to find a published article or working paper in an academic venue that defends Sander's work, other than his own."   Sander might well contend that the absence of concurring work is due to the fear of staking out a controversial position. But an equally plausible hypothesis - and one well supported by critiques - is that significant questions exist as to whether he has proven what he claims.  Under the guise of being balanced, Scheer's commentary considers none of this.

 

That Sander has a right to advocate his position is undeniable.  What he does not have is a right to acquire personal and confidential information of bar exam takers when the law mandates otherwise. 

Anthony Solana, Jr., is president and chairperson of For People of Color, Inc. Sara Jackson is the Equal Justice Society Judge Constance Baker Motley Civil Rights Fellow. More information on this issue, visit www.equaljusticesociety.org.

Julian Bond Introduces Ben Jealous, New President of the NAACP

Next week a new chapter will begin at the NAACP when Benjamin Todd Jealous, 35, becomes only the 17th President of the NAACP in its 99-year history, wrote NAACP chairman Julian Bond in an email today.

Ben has been an ally of the Equal Justice Society since our founding and all of us here are proud that he will lead the NAACP.

Mr. Jealous has spent his professional life working for the very social justice concerns for which the NAACP advocates.  We believe that he is a perfect match, and I think you will agree.

A life-long community activist, Mr. Jealous organized his first voter registration drive at age 14, with a determination that stemmed from being raised in a family that has actively supported the NAACP for five generations.

He began his career as a community organizer with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund working on issues of healthcare access in Harlem.  At age 21, Jealous moved to Mississippi to work as a field organizer as part of a successful campaign to stop the state's plan to close two of its three public historically black universities, and convert one of them into a prison.

During that time, he took a job at Mississippi's Jackson Advocate newspaper investigating human rights abuses. His reporting for the frequently firebombed weekly paper was credited with exposing corruption amongst high-ranking officials at notorious Parchman State Prison. His investigations also helped to acquit a black small farmer who had been wrongfully and maliciously accused of arson. 

He soon became Managing Editor at the Advocate, and eventually went on to serve as Executive Director of the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA), a federation of more than 200 black community newspapers. While at the NNPA, he rebuilt its 90-year old national news service and launched a web-based initiative that more than doubled the number of black newspapers publishing online.  

His career path has also included leadership positions at Amnesty International, where he directed the U.S. Domestic Human Rights Program and published their widely acclaimed 2004 report, Threat and Humiliation: Racial Profiling, Domestic Security, and Human Rights in the United States, leading efforts to rebuild public support against racial profiling post 9/11.

Most recently, Mr. Jealous served as President of the Rosenberg Foundation, an independent institution that supports civil and human rights advocacy related to the economic interests of working people.

A Rhodes Scholar as well as an accomplished activist, Mr. Jealous is one of the best and brightest of his generation; and he represents a new generation for the NAACP. To learn more about him, visit the NAACP website.

I hope you will join me in welcoming Benjamin Todd Jealous to our organization. I know we can expect great things from his leadership.