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.