Eroding Our Civil and Human Rights Institutions from the Inside Out

In recent years we have witnessed the most aggressive dismissal and corrosion of some of our nations’ (and the world’s) most treasured institutions by the U.S. government. The brazen and impertinent appointment of John R. Bolton to the United Nations sent a clear message to the U.N. and to the world that the United States was not interested in bilateral discussions. Such an affront to a reputable and honored establishment did not go over quietly, with Bolton fanning the fire with ostentatious statements such as: “if the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference,” and publicly expressing his view that the United States is not bound, like other countries, by international laws and treaties. Not exactly a stellar candidate to represent the United States.

The appointment of questionable candidates to represent important and time-honored organizations is something that has recently become characteristic of the United States. This past week, Leon Drolet, chairman of the campaign to end affirmative action in Michigan University admissions and public sector hiring, was appointed to be the chairman of Michigan’s state advisory committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights decried the appointment, stating that “the U.S. Commission has all but erased its credibility as a proponent for human rights” and that it was “disappointing that the U.S. Commission on Human Rights chose a representative with such a shallow civil rights résumé.”

Drolet follows a series of questionable appointments to the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights by the current administration. Perhaps the most controversial appointment has been Gerald A. Reynolds, who is famous for his staunch opposition to Affirmative Action and his position that racial discrimination is not behind the disparities in unemployment, wages, disease, education, and housing that face people of color. Reynolds stance is that minorities are to blame for all the problems they face, and that if they only had a “bootstraps” mentality, their situation would improve, and that institutional racism is a “historic” issue. Reynolds is also a former member of the ironically named “Center for Equal Opportunity,” a conservative think tank that promotes “colorblind public policies,” including the elimination or curtailment of existing racial preference and affirmative action programs. Reynolds’ dismissal of structural and institutional racism shifts the blame from the causes and perpetrators of racism to its victims.

Reynolds has described himself, saying: “I am not a civil rights activist…I’ve never been a civil rights activist.” This is eerily reminiscent of Bolton’s public affirmations that he, also, had no faith or background in the work of the organization he has been elected to represent. The appointment of Reynolds, Bolton, and other objectionable candidates is almost certainly meant to be read as a rebuke to the U.N. and the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights—organizations that have been highly critical of both the U.S. governments’ domestic and international policies.

Wade Henderson, the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, stated that these appointments “[signal] the end of the commission as an independent voice for the protection of civil and human rights.” This trend is threatening to the very principles that the U.N. and the U.S. Commission on Human Rights are built upon and stand for. Without equal participation, non-partisan representation, and an agenda that is focused on stopping human and civil rights abuses and not promoting one party’s, or one country’s, agenda, the organizations lose their value and credibility.

Perhaps even more unsettling is that through the appointment of members who oppose affirmative action and have poor, or nonexistent, civil rights records, we are effectively tightening the grip of structural racism on people of color living in the United States. The policies and studies that will be undertaken by the very organizations that are meant to protect civil liberties and promote racial justice will instead cater to an ideology that is dismissive of structural racism and hostile to disadvantaged minorities. The most recent additions to the U.S. Civil Rights Committee have made it clear that they do not believe in structural violence. It is highly probable that this will shift the focus of the studies, policies, and practices of the U.S. Committee on Civil Rights. We need the U.S. Committee on Civil Rights to reflect the needs and concerns of people of color in the United States. Instead, the Committee has been changed to reflect an ideology that will work against minorities, blaming them for their problems, rather than offering them the bipartisan assistance they need.

This is a real problem for the Civil Rights and Racial Justice Movements in this country. Weakening organizations that could hold the United States’ government accountable for their colossal failures at creating, maintaining, or respecting human rights and civil liberties is a troubling trend for people of color in the United States and the global community. The damage done to civil and human rights organizations that have been built upon years of activism and struggle is not only an affront to our rights, but to our history. If the United States government does not change its hostile and untrusting treatment of organizations such as the U.N. and the U.S. Committee on Civil Rights, the appointment of questionable representatives and board members will be viewed as nothing more Trojan horses.

And if we, as a people, allow this trend to continue, we will be left with no dependable or credible organizations to protect people of color against structural and institutional racism.

This was written for Advancement Project’s Blog on June 13, 2007 www.justdemocracyblog.org

by Clare Bakota