June 11, 2000

I have just been provided a copy of your article about the "end run" around Prop. 209 by UCLA and UC Irvine. It is quite revealing and compelling. It is the first hard evidence that I have seen to suggest that 209 is not being complied with by the University, although I have had my suspicions.

I intend to pursue the matter. I have one objection to your article: After having spent the last five years of my life trying to eliminate preferences, and fighting the proponents of preferences as well as my own political party, which lacks the will to join me, it is a little disconcerting to read your characterization of me as a "hypocrite" and someone who does "not have the stomach to bring the fight to an honest conclusion." I am not a "politician," and while I am trying to expand the legal and policy framework of 209 to other states, under no circumstance do I consider the job completed in California. This is a marathon, not a sprint, and you would do a great service to your readers if you exercised more understanding of what we are trying to accomplish in the broad scheme of things instead of attacking without adequate information. Now that I am armed with your excellent article, I have a basis upon which to proceed.

With regard to Tom Wood and Steve Balch, I believe you have taken their comments out of context. My understanding of what they said is based on the premise that the admissions outcome was being achieved in a race-free policy paradigm. Personally, I don't give a damn about the outcome as long as the process is free of discrimination and preferences, which are the same thing. I have expressed this position ad naseum since the passage of 209--as have Tom and Steve.

Ward Connerly