Arizona And Oklahoma

Arizona and Oklahoma join the party with the launching of drives to put the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative and the Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative on the 2008 ballot.


Writing earlier today about conflicting confusions in Colorado (here), I noted that some opponents of the new civil rights initiative opposed it because there were no racial preferences to bar while others opposed it because it would reverse and prevent all sorts of good things that depended on bestowing racial preferences.

This confusion must be endemic to preferentialists (unless they are simply following the same script in an effort to obfuscate), for it has now popped up in Arizona.

Arizona Board of Regents spokeswoman Anne Barton said university officials were reviewing the situation. “But in general Arizona public universities do not have any policies in place that would provide a special benefit to a certain race or gender,” Barton said.

However, a legislator who said she opposes Connerly’s initiative said it could affect current university law school admission practices in which an applicant’s race or gender might be considered along with other aspects of their background.

This defense of the “consideration” of race is a ubiquitous preferentialist obfuscation, since what is being defended is not “consideration” of race but rewarding and punishing on the basis of race. What would be the point of “considering” race if it could not be used in any way to help or hinder someone seeking college admission or public employment?


I had literally just posted the above UPDATE when I saw this article from the Arizona Republic, reconfirming my point. The article begins:

An effort was launched today to ban Arizona governments and universities from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin in hiring and other decisions.

The affirmative action initiative would prohibit everything from government contracting that gives preference to minority-owned businesses to public universities that consider race in student admissions….

First, the measure would not, could not, “prohibit … public universities that consider race”; it would prohibit public universities from considering race. But let’s avoid grammatical nit-picking and move to what passes for substance. In stating that the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative would prohibit everything from giving racial preferences to considering race, the reporter insinuates that ACRI would ban a whole range of things. But, as I’ve just argued above, there is no distance at all between giving preference based on race and considering race! It’s the same thing, and it’s the only one thing that would be banned.

In another common oddity of the defense of preferences, as reported in the Arizona Republic article, “Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, called the measure “just another divisive initiative.”

So, dividing people on the basis of their race and ethnicity, helping some and hindering others because of their skin color, is unifying, but a measure requiring the state to treat all its citizens without regard to their race, ethnicity, or gender is “divisive”?

Do preferentialists ever listen to themselves or each other? Do they have any idea how weird their “divisive” argument sounds? No, not sounds. Is.

Say What? (8)

  1. John April 27, 2007 at 12:28 am | | Reply

    Federal scrutiny of school grant use

    Seattle students sent to ‘white privilege’ conference

  2. Cobra April 27, 2007 at 3:28 pm | | Reply

    John Rosenberg writes:

    >>>”So, dividing people on the basis of their race and ethnicity, helping some and hindering others because of their skin color, is unifying, but a measure requiring the state to treat all its citizens without regard to their race, ethnicity, or gender is “divisive”?

    Do preferentialists ever listen to themselves or each other? Do they have any idea how weird their “divisive” argument sounds? No, not sounds. Is.”

    You’re kidding right? You’re going to sit here and say that American History in regards to race is irrelevant? You’re going to sit here and say that American Society does not CURRENTLY divide and consider people based upon race, gender or ethnicity?

    The more and more you post these arguments, the more you sound like D’nesh D’Souza. I’ve already posted his ultimate goal here on Discriminations, but some here need to be reminded…

    >>>”This approach holds the government to a rigorous standard of colorblindness, while allowing private actors to be free to discriminate as they wish. In practice, this means uncompromising race neutrality in government hiring and promotion, criminal justice, and the drawing of voting districts. Yet individuals and companies would be allowed to discriminate in private transactions such as selecting a business partner or hiring for a job. Am I calling for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes. The law should be changed so that its nondiscrimination provisions apply only to the government.”

    And you have to ASK people like me WHY we fight against your movement, John?


  3. ACF April 28, 2007 at 6:46 am | | Reply


    What is the problem with private discrimination? It didn’t seem to be a problem with the lunch cafeteria I used to frequent that only hired Mexicans, or the video store I used to frequent on the south side of Chicago that only hired blacks (and reluctantly served whites only after all black customers in the store were served first).

    What is the problem? These are business decisions, just like the decision to serve blond-haired and fair skinned teenagers (Abercrombie and Fitch). In all cases, they are simply business decisions made by owners risking their own capital.

    Now, the government is risking all of our capital and serving all us, so they better damn well NOT discriminate based on race or sex. Think about it.

    By the way, your arguments would not be so silly and dismissed so easily if you would stick very clearly to the point. In your post above, you sidestep this opportunity by transferring John’s comments to D’nesh D’Souza. Silly.


  4. FreeMan April 28, 2007 at 9:37 am | | Reply

    ACF – The US Civil Rights Act of 1964 is based upon the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution – Sexism & Racism affect interstate commerce when the government allows individuals to discriminate based upon Sexism & Racism it slows the quick & free flow of $

    I don’t believe that you applied for a job at “that lunch cafeteria in Chicago that only hired Mexicans” & if you did you could file a US Civil Rights Complaint – I don’t believe that there is a “video store on the South side of Chicago that only hires (B)lacks & reluctantly served (W)hites only after the (B)lacks were served 1st” if such a store operated you could file a complaint against such a store based on the US Civil Rights Act

  5. ACF April 29, 2007 at 1:56 am | | Reply


    I frequented both establishments for 3 years and I can give you their addresses if you’d like to go there. The Mexican lunch cafeteria was excellent and I loved their food. I did not like the video store but had to go there for videos because no other store was nearby in this extremely dangerous neighborhood (see below).

    By the way, have you never seen family establishments with employees of primarily a single ethnicity/race? Really? If you did, did you sue them? Why not?

    Why would I sue private establishments for discrimination in these cases? I don’t even think it is wrong, and it certainly is not illegal.

    No, I didn’t apply for a job at either place because I didn’t want one. Besides, I would not have been hired because they only hired “their kind.” I just don’t see what the problem is. Now, if they were publicly funded, then I would have sued.

    On a final note, there were also repeated incidents of blacks in gangs spontaneously beating whites with baseball bats in the same neighborhood. This would happen a handful of times a year and was reported in the local newspaper. For some reason, these incidents weren’t pursued as “hate crimes” because black perpetrators were beating whites and that does not constitute “hate” because “whites” are in “power.” Of course, I felt it was bad that individuals bashed in the heads of other individuals with baseball bats. I never understood analyzing such incidents based on skin pigmentation, and I don’t understand your groupthink.

  6. Cobra April 29, 2007 at 11:31 pm | | Reply

    ACF writes:

    >>>”What is the problem with private discrimination?”

    ACF, you’re free to discriminate against anybody you want in America. You can form your own little ACFers private club and ban everybody. Nobody’s stopping you.

    Just don’t violate the Commerce clause as determined by the Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States et al. (1964), just like Freeman said.

    Private discrimination is an ominous factor in today’s America, because conservatives seem to want to privatize EVERYTHING–from education, to health care, disaster recovery, transportation and even war (over 100,000 contractors in Iraq)

    So when D’Souza argues for private discrimination while his fellow right wingers argue for more privatization, you can see why conscious minorities like ME see red flags flying.


  7. Shouting Thomas May 1, 2007 at 10:06 am | | Reply

    OK Cobra, talk some sense.

    First, you’ve argued that you hate segregation of all kinds and that any public segregation is racism and must be eliminated

    Second, you’ve argued that whites who befriend blacks and associate with blacks are engaging in “some of my best friends are black” racism.

    Third, you’ve consistently argued that you represent all blacks and that any blacks who disagree with you are race traitors. What elective office do you hold?

    According to you any blacks who associate with and profit from their relationships with whites are not authentically black. I assume that by this you mean that blacks are only truly black if they engage in the sort of Mau-Mauing you love. In other words, the world of thuggery is the only authentically black world.

    You are a proponent of total segregation in the private realm, and a believer that blacks and whites must engage constantly in a racial war.

    Exactly what sort of integration is it you propose? Methinks, you are simply talking trash and that you are obsessed with a macho desire to triumph over other people. The issues, in reality, mean nothing to you.

  8. dweezel May 10, 2007 at 5:26 am | | Reply

    I read the foregoing and now I must say this: In Oklahoma there is religious discrimination in hiring, and there is no public agency or law office OR politician in the state with which one can file a complaint. There is also profiling going on in every public/private institution and the chances are good that one can be arrested for the “crime” of simply showing up to access prearranged services….if someone there decides arbitrarily you need to be dealt with that way…and then there’s no legal recourse for victims of such abuse. As usual, if you want constitutional protection, you’d better back up your need to access it…with a huge bundle of money, or it didn’t happen to you, even when it did. Another way of saying that in some states, such as this one, civil rights go to the highest bidder, and then the bidding process is privatized and secret too. Way to go OK, I must say!

Say What?