Poor Ward Connerly. It must be difficult being colorblind in a society so full of color. Imagine a penguin trapped in a valley full of peacocks; no matter how much the little fella tries to tell himself they're all just a bunch of birds, the evidence is quite to the contrary.

A millionaire businessman and member of the University of California's Board of Regents best known for his efforts to scuttle affirmative action programs, Connerly can't seem to get a handle on the significance of race and diversity in American culture. Rather than put a little more effort into figuring out what most of us black folks figured out quite a while ago -- namely that race still matters down here on the ground where the laws of gravity still apply -- he prefers simply to abolish racial classifications altogether. No muss, no fuss. Now we can all live together in peace and harmony -- on Planet Connerly. Who would have ever suspected that all it takes to eliminate racism and create equality and justice for all is to pass a law effectively erasing race? No race, no racism, right? Life is simple, life is good.

On Planet Connerly.

But let's rewind this discussion a bit for some background: You might be interested to know that Ward Connerly's full first name is Wardell. For that matter, Connerly himself might be interested to recall his own name. You see where I'm going with this, Wardell? See, Wardell is one of those names that kind of sends up an advance warning flare that this just might be a black person coming your way. My grandfather's name was Henry Wardell McNamee. The "Henry" was safe enough, and the "McNamee" certainly offered clear sailing through white waters -- at least until my grandfather came through the door -- but that Wardell part? I dunno ... I suspect that moniker triggered the "Negro alert response team" buzzer whenever it appeared on certain applications or important government forms.

Just to update the analogy a tad for you younger readers out there, a "Wardell'" in some ways is like a "Shaquille" or a "Malik" or a "Moesha." Or a "Muhammad." Or "Federico." Some names send out a certain advance warning in this culture, whereas others slip easily beneath the radar, which makes me wonder why Wardell Connerly goes by the name Ward these days.

Hmmmm ...

Remember "Leave it to Beaver"? If you're old enough to remember that ancient television sitcom, or have caught the reruns, then perhaps you know the name of "The Beav's" father? His name was Ward Cleaver. Not Wardell Cleaver. Goodness no! Could you imagine Beaver's mother calling out "Wardell? Wardell! Baby, have you seen the Beav? I swear I don't know where that chile went to!"

Frightening, yes? You have to wonder if maybe Ward isn't running as far and fast as possible from Wardell as he possibly can.

OK, moving right along. It seems Ward was so enraged by the recent Supreme Court decision affirming the University of Michigan's right to continue using racial classifications as a factor in its admissions process that he decided it was time to rush on out here to our state and announce his intention to collect enough signatures to place something known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative on the state's November 2004 ballot. If the measure reaches the ballot and gets a majority of votes to make it the law, the Supreme Court's ruling could effectively be nullified here. After all, the ruling apparently doesn't preclude states from taking measures into their own hands if they feel like it.

Of course, since Connerly is a California resident, it seems a little strange that he feels the need to jet all the way up here to save us from ourselves, which I suspect is what he thinks he's doing. Apparently he can't trust the anti-affirmative action residents of Michigan -- of whom there are plenty -- to get mad enough fast enough, so he figures, you know, just to be safe, maybe he'd better lend a helping hand. And Michigan is just the first stop. ...

"We hope we can get a critical mass of states saying 'This isn't right," Connerly is quoted as saying. "Then, hopefully, the president, Supreme Court, and Congress will take the issue up again." Connerly is determined to win this thing by any means necessary, and he's just getting revved up. Still, he would have to collect 317,757 signatures to force a vote on his measure, which would essentially bring California's Proposition 209 to Michigan. Proposition 209, which was passed in 1996, prohibits the state from granting preferential treatment to individuals and groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in employment, education and contracting.

Incidentally, just something to think about, but isn't it strange that Connerly's organization that he founded to destroy affirmative action is called the "American Civil Rights Institute"? I mean, doesn't the guy know what ...

Poor Ward Connerly.

Anyway, the current ballot proposal being promoted by Connerly in California, which has already gained enough signatures to be placed on the March 2004 ballot, is essentially Proposition 209 on steroids. In addition to banning affirmative action, it would prevent state and local agencies from collecting statistics on the race, ethnicity, color or national origin of students and employees of public schools and colleges, and of government contractors. The measure would also prohibit other agencies from gathering such statistics, although the state Legislature would be given some leeway to exempt certain racial data from the Big Eraser. Data collected specifically for the purpose of complying with federal law, for law enforcement functions or for purposes related to medical research would also be exempt.

The good news is that even in California, Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative is running into fairly tough opposition; the initiative is essentially the Big Eraser component of the Michigan proposal. The University of California's Board of Regents, of which Connerly is a member, voted overwhelmingly early this month to repudiate the Racial Privacy Initiative, which has already qualified for the March 2004 ballot in California. This is significant since this same group supported him on Proposition 209. Also, when Connerly spoke last week in Ann Arbor to promote his anti-affirmative action message, he was met by a very vocal, very visible anti-Connerly contingent. Even the Michigan Republican Party bigwigs made it plain they aren't supporting his efforts.

Ward? I'd like you to meet Wardell.

Keith A. Owens is a Detroit-area writer and musician.

When I first heard about this white guy who took pride in calling himself a "race traitor," my instinct was to figure he was crazy, a publicity hound or some sort of shock jock.

How many white guys do you know who say stuff like, "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity?" Right. That's what I thought. Meet Noel Ignatiev, a white Marxist who wants to abolish the white race. Yep, that's what I said.

I suspect a major reason for all the attention aside from the fact that Ignatiev is white -- he describes himself as a nonpracticing Jew who is an American -- is that he is a fellow at Harvard's W.E.B. DuBois Institute, perhaps the nation's leading black studies department. That alone makes it highly unlikely that Ignatiev is crazy. Publicity hound? Shock jock? Listen to the man first, then judge.

"In my view this country is divided into masters and slaves," he told me during a telephone interview. "The majority of all people in this country are slaves. Most have no say-so over their lives at all. The problem is that a lot of the slaves think they're masters. ... The poor white is the house slave of this country. Not the middle-class black. The poor white."

Professor Ignatiev has put one hell of a lot of thought into becoming a race traitor. There've been charges of treason, though none so serious as to require special security measures.

"Mostly I get death threats," he said. "'Die, Jew commie dog, die' is pretty much the standard. I don't worry about the ones who send e-mail because they're not the ones who are going to kill me," he added with a laugh.

Given the superficiality of society, where most media-generated information is the intellectual equivalent of Gerber's, it is little surprise that the press coverage of Ignatiev has focused on his conclusions rather than the questions that led to them. Those interested in truly understanding the school of thought to which Ignatiev belongs should check out his Web site, www.racetraitor.org, or his book "How the Irish Became White." Meanwhile, here's a peek into his on-line journal:

"The white race cuts across ethnic and class lines," says one editorial. Furthermore, it is not automatic that European ancestry makes one white "since many of those classified as 'colored' can trace some of their ancestry to Europe, while African, Asian, or American Indian blood flows through the veins of many considered white." Whiteness also does not equal a bank account parked on full, since there are far more poor whites than rich ones, not to mention an increasing number of nonwhites who live in comfort.

"The white race consists of those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to the system that degrades them. Race itself is a product of social discrimination; so long as the white race exists, all movements against racism are doomed to fail."

"The key to solving the social problems of our age," he adds, "is to abolish the white race. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue in U.S. society, whether domestic or foreign."

To further clarify that point, Ignatiev told me, "I want for people defined as white to reject the advantages accorded them as white. I want to do away with all the accumulated advantages attached to whiteness -- the job preferences, the better schools, all of it. I am not asking for white people to leave the suburbs and move into the inner cities. I am asking that they fight so hard against the barriers that exist [to nonwhites] that those barriers fall down."

Ignatiev refers to himself as one of the New Abolitionists in the tradition of John Brown, the 19th century white radical who sacrificed his life to lead an uprising against slavery at Harpers Ferry.

Ignatiev thinks about the quality, not the quantity, of potential converts. "We're aiming at winning over a small number of so-called whites that will make life so unbearable for the rest of them that it will force a change to come about," he said. He takes pains to distinguish what he's saying from some "Die, honky, die!" '60s diatribe. This is not, repeat, not, a call to arms to shoot white folks on sight. Ignatiev is hardly suicidal, and the revolution that he is pushing for can never be won with guns or bombs; he is calling for a revolution of the mind.

"If whiteness didn't have a social meaning, if the advantages weren't there, then people wouldn't think of themselves as white," he said.

If you won't accept the obvious fact that the vast majority of power in the most powerful nation on Earth is controlled by whites, there's no way you will accept a single word of what Ignatiev has to say. So you might as well move on.

But for those willing to consider what this power structure has historically inflicted upon the less powerful (here and around the globe), then it might become clearer why Ignatiev feels his crusade is imperative.

Ignatiev asserts in his journal that most whites who benefit from white skin privilege wouldn't mind doing the right thing if it were convenient, but it's so very hard to voluntarily walk away from your goodies -- no matter how you got them. Rather than wrestle with the guilt of how you and yours got to be on top of the pile -- and whose bleached bones are buried below -- it's much easier to rewrite history and concoct fictions about why those on the bottom didn't have the right stuff to make it to the top.

Some might argue this is merely human nature in its purest, albeit most primitive, form. Folks on top want to stay there by any means necessary. But if you're standing on someone else's neck, then others might argue that you're not as tall as you think you are -- and that the person upon whose neck you are standing will fight like hell to rise up. As humanity evolves it will become clear that those standing tall atop the bodies and spirits of others are just as much at risk as those upon whom they are standing.

That's the better side of human nature, and hopefully it will prevail. Otherwise, according to Ignatiev, "Either we win or [the nonwhites are] gonna blow this country up."

Keith A. Owens is a Detroit-area writer and musician.