Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Matt Welch (*L.A. Times*) Roundup on Chemerinsky News and Commentary
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_16-2007_09_22.shtml#1189961151
[1]here.
Don't be confused, though, by this excerpt from a rather puzzling
Harper's blog post:
But the academics who express surprise here really are displaying
their ignorance of the career trajectory of Michael Drake. He came
to prominence and climbed the ladder of the University of
California system by being politically controversial. It's the
nature of the political controversy that tells the difference.
Drake loudly touted views that were pleasing to the California
G.O.P. Indeed, if Drake is known for one thing it is his staunch
opposition to California's Proposition 209. Approved by California
voters in 1996, Proposition 209 prohibited discrimination based on
race, ethnicity or sex�it was a vehicle for a new, soft affirmative
action which focused on improving the educational standards of
inner-city and minority neighborhood schools. Since its passage and
implementation, graduation rates for African-Americans in the
University of California system have soared, and studies suggest a
direct and causal link. (As point conceded even by the beyond
conservative anti-affirmative action polemicist Rich Lowry in
National Review). Drake, being an African-American, was viewed as
the perfect poster boy for an anti-affirmative action campaign.
I am not questioning the sincerity of Drake's Clarence Thomas-like
anti-affirmative action views. I am merely pointing out that they
were politically controversial, they reflected what turned out to
be a minority view in California, and time has proven that his
opposition was seriously misplaced. Drake suffered no adverse
consequences for this in his political career; indeed, he clearly
benefited. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is
penalizing a person for political views, particularly based on a
perception that he is somehow out of step with the mainstream. Time
has a habit of changing these perceptions. Drake should have kept
that in mind. Indeed, Drake should have kept in mind that one
hundred years ago he could not have aspired to be a professor in
the University of California system, much less a chancellor -- and
that demonstrates the tyrannical and unhealthy effect of blind
adherence to the politically conventional.
The Harper's post no longer includes this mystifying passage, which
has since been silently replaced by this much more internally
consistent item: "If Drake is known for one thing it is his staunch
opposition to California's Proposition 209. Approved by California
voters in 1996, Proposition 209 prohibited discrimination based on
race, ethnicity or sex�it was pushed to impede traditional affirmative
action programs. Drake's views were politically controversial. Drake
suffered no adverse consequences for this in his political career;
indeed, he clearly benefited. There's nothing wrong with that. What's
wrong is penalizing a person for political views, particularly based
on a perception that he is somehow out of step with the mainstream."
References
1. http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2007/09/right-wing-boge.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
