ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, June 19, 1996 TAG: 9606190025
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: CAL THOMAS
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
THE 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court outlawing racial gerrymandering in legislative districts in North Carolina and Texas is a welcome step forward in the direction of equal treatment for all in a color-blind society.
One district in North Carolina and three in Texas had been drawn, at least in part, to guarantee either black or Hispanic candidates would be elected to Congress.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor correctly noted that the law must ``acknowledge voters are more than mere racial statistics,'' and that the Constitution ``evinces a commitment to eliminate unnecessary and excessive governmental use and reinforcement of racial stereotypes.''
Perhaps the greatest of these stereotypes is that most whites hate most blacks so much that the only way blacks can succeed in government is to impose a paternalistic and racist system to guarantee certain persons will be elected on the basis of the hue of their skin, not the content of their character or the quality of their ideas.
The usual prophets of doom were quickly heard after the court's ruling. Self-anointed civil-rights leaders blasted the decision. What they are really worried about is their own loss of power and influence, not only over blacks but also over white liberals and moderates they have managed to intimidate for years with threats of ``long hot summers'' and an absence at the polls if their demands are not met.
The desperation of some who apparently don't think that blacks can ever make it on their own bordered on the ludicrous. Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., whose district was drawn about as narrowly as an interstate highway, compared the court decision to poll taxes, literacy tests and other ploys used 30 and more years ago to deny minorities the right to vote.
The analogy is flawed, because the court ruling simply means that blacks, like every other group, will now have to appeal to all sectors of society when running for office. That is what two black Republican congressmen - J.C. Watts of Oklahoma and Gary Franks of Connecticut - did, and mostly white districts elected them.
In a speech in Nashville, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, compared the Supreme Court decision to the recent rash of fires at black churches. He added these incendiary remarks: ``We've got black men in black robes in Washington burning our voting rights and white men in white robes in Tennessee burning our churches.''
The real issue for Lowery and his fellow race-baiters is not race at all. If it were, they wouldn't be calling Justice Clarence Thomas names and trying to keep him from making public speeches. Nor would they ignore the success of Watts and Franks and what their election means for better relations between the races. Lowery and company think only liberal blacks should take positions of power, and all blacks should think alike. If they don't, they get ``black listed.''
In his new book ``Searching for the Promised Land,'' Franks recalls how members of the liberal Congressional Black Caucus shunned and insulted him because of his conservative positions on most issues. He recounts the numerous racial insults heaped upon him by his ``brothers.'' He says they called him a ``handkerchief-head Negro'' and ``Uncle Tom.'' They've called Clarence Thomas much worse.
There should be more black conservatives recruited to run for local, state and national office. Conservative blacks in increasing numbers are speaking out on the evils of welfare and dependency on the federal government. They are preaching personal integrity and responsibility.
Many conservative and moderate whites would vote for candidates with such ideas. Electing them to office will do more for improved race relations than the whining civil rights establishment that has outlived its usefulness.
- Los Angeles Times Syndicate
LENGTH: Medium: 73 linesby CNB