By WARD CONNERLY - Over 20 years ago, California voters did something no other state had done—they abolished racial preferences in public university admissions and other public venues. The language was simple and direct: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” It passed by a 10-point margin.
But the critics, including most of the University of California system leadership, were loud. They had predicted Prop. 209 would obliterate racial diversity throughout the university system, especially at the nine undergraduate UC campuses. Critics contended that 209 would “resegregate” UC, result in an “all Asian” university, and “drive blacks and browns from California and higher education,” I was personally accused of being a race traitor, a KKK sympathizer and an “Uncle Tom.”
As it turns out, my prediction was correct. Although the University of California and certain members of the California Legislative Latino Caucus, which basically controls the Legislature, continued their attempts to undermine the law, the numbers prove that the critics were wrong. Beginning in 2010, minority admissions to UC — without the benefit of preferences — exceeded that of 1996, in absolute numbers and, more important, as a percentage of all "admits.”
California, the most ethnically and racially diverse state in the nation, proved that fairness was not fatal to diversity. But as groundbreaking as Prop 209 was, it didn’t create the national wave that I had hoped it would. In the immediate aftermath of its passage, there was a flurry of activity and interest from a few states that wanted to get out from under the yoke of affirmative action. I was involved in ballot drives in Florida and Washington, for example. But a generation after that first promising moment, our efforts have resulted in only five other states (Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Washington), which have passed initiatives patterned after 209. In addition, Florida and New Hampshire have acted in other significant ways to emulate 209 without the use of ballot initiatives.
But too often over the years politics has hampered the push for equality. Although America is essentially governed by Republicans—the GOP dominates the majority of state legislatures and governors’ mansions—and the GOP professes to believe in individual rights and equal treatment for every individual, my party seems unwilling to defend its principles when it comes to race. In a conversation with a prominent member of the House about two years ago, when I suggested that legislation be introduced to reaffirm the 1964 Civil Rights Act and to include language patterned after Proposition 209, the member expressed fear of opposition from the Congressional Black Caucus and Rep. Maxine Waters. He cautioned me that “Republicans don’t need that going into a national election.”
All this left me resigned to the prospect our core principles favoring merit and equal treatment will not overcome the quest for diversity. That is, until last week.
Recently, we discovered that we may finally have a federal administration that is willing to do what should have been done years ago: conduct ourselves in accordance with the American creed of equality. I applaud the effort by the Justice Department to investigate the issue of affirmative action and to follow the people who voted to end race preferences.
But I’m under no illusions that this investigation, even one run by a Department of Justice overseen by a conservative of Jeff Sessions’ pedigree, will solve this problem masquerading as a cure. It has simply become orthodoxy that it is permissible to discriminate against one group as long as you say you’re trying to help another more politically favored group.
Read the rest here:
What It’s Going to Take to End Racial Preferences - POLITICO Magazine
No comments:
Post a Comment