Discriminations

Both houses of the Arizona legislature have now approved the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, which will appear on the ballot in 2010!

If voters approve the measure, Arizona will join the voters of California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska, all of whom have amended their state constitutions to prohibit the state from discriminating against, or giving preference to, anyone based on race, ethnicity, or gender.

Once again, everyone owes Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz a debt of gratitude for their hard work on this issue.

Posted by John Rosenberg at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Say What? (3) | TrackBacks (0)

In an interview with George Stephanopoulus finally stepped away from (“abandoned” might be too strong) his ridiculous refusal to endorse colorblind equality and announced that, after all, and his previous reluctance to the contrary, he really does believe the state should treat its citizens without regard to race, ethnicity, or sex.

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Opponents of affirmative action are trying to get a referendum on the ballot here that would do away with affirmative action. Do you support that?”

MCCAIN: “Yes, I do. I do not believe in quotas. But I have not seen the details of some of the proposals. But I’ve always opposed quotas.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “But the one here in Arizona you support?”

McCAIN: “I support it, yes.”

Obama, predictably, continues to attack the requirement that everyone be treated without regard to race as “divisive.” Speaking to “journalists of color” in Chicago, Obama said:

“I think in the past he [McCain] had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he’s right. You know, the truth of the matter is, these are not designed to solve a big problem, but they’re all too often designed to drive a wedge between people, “ Obama said to a question asked from an audience of journalists.

So, treating everyone without regard to race, ethnicity, or sex is to “drive a wedge between people.”

Welcome to Obamaland.

Posted by John Rosenberg at 2:55 PM | Permalink | Say What? (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative has submitted 334,658 signatures with the Secretary of State's office, 100,000 more than the number required to qualify for the ballot.

BAMN has filed suit to keep the initiative off the ballot because, as national director Shanta Driver explained, “she fears a majority of Arizonans will vote for it.”

In addition, BAMN claims that it is “deceptive” to describe a measure that would prohibit discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual because of race, ethnicity, or gender as a civil rights measure.

There is plenty of deception in this debate, but it is not coming from supporters of ACRI.

Posted by John Rosenberg at 7:05 PM | Permalink | Say What? (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An article about the anti-equality protesters in Arizona has all the usual drivel we have come to expect from them — outraged (and outrageous) charges that the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative is a “fraud”; would be “a setback for civil rights”; etc. — but it is nevertheless noteworthy, for three reasons: 1) one of the misrepresentations from the anti-equality protesters is unintentionally but revealingly humorous; 2) one of the misrepresentations is perhaps the most egregious I’ve seen in the long, sordid history of the pro-preference crowd; and 3), and perhaps most astounding of all, one of the Arizona protesters actually said something that is almost true. I’ll take these in turn.

1. Shanta Driver, a “national spokeswoman” for BAMN, the violence-promoting pro-preference group whose official title is “Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, & Immigrant Rights and Fight For Equality By Any Means Necessary,” has been encountered here a number of times, spouting nonsense and doublespeak, promoting unruly, disruptive behavior, engaging in Driver-by attacks on equality, filing frivolous lawsuits that inevitably get dismissed by the courts, etc. Now, predictably, she’s shown up in Arizona to organize BAMN’s voter intimidation efforts there, only now she’s apparently trying to clean up her image. She is identified in the article (linked in first paragraph above) as representing “The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.” Looks like the “... By Any Means Necessary” was conveniently discarded, temporarily, as too incendiary for Arizonans.

2. Mathew Whitaker, one of the Arizona pro-preference protesters, had the nerve (or perhaps merely the ignorance) to claim that voting for the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative

would be rolling back mechanisms, programs, procedures and policies that allow everyone regardless of race, regardless of gender, equal access to that which sustains us here in the state.

In short, Whitaker has given new meaning to the concept of duplicitous disingenuousness (unless,of course, he’s simply too dumb to know what he’s talking about). Accusing civil rights advocates of engage in fraud and misrepresentation, he asserts that prohibiting the state from discriminating against any individual based on race, ethnicity, or gender would eliminate programs that provide equal access to everyone “regardless of race, regardless, of gender.” News bulletin for Mr. Whitaker et. al.: it is the opponents, not the supporters, of the Arizona Ciivl Rights Initiative who regard official colorblindness (“regardless of race,” etc.) as racism, who want to preserve programs that discriminate against some and give preferential treatment to others based on race.

3. Whitaker, perhaps doing an imitation of the stopped clock that is right twice a day, did, uncharacteristically of BAMN protesters everywhere, say one thing that was almost true. He urged voters to look closely at the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative in order

to understand that what you are looking at is not necessarily a measure that has been put forth by people whose definition of civil rights is the same as yours.

Almost true, but not quite. That initiative is “put forth” by people whose definition of civil rights is indeed different from Whitaker’s and BAMN’s, but I’m confident it is a definition shared by most voters in Arizona, as it was by voters in California, Washington, and Michigan.

Posted by John Rosenberg at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Say What? (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Booker Evans is described here as a “minority activist” in Arizona who is a leading opponent of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative.

Evans, believe it or not, actually argues that prohibiting state discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender would “create a divide among people” based on race, ethnicity, and gender. In addition,

Evans also argues that the state constitution already provides necessary civil rights protections.

“It’s (the amendment) is something we don’t need. We already have something in the constitution that already prohibits the conduct he’s ([Ward] Connerly) is trying to eliminate with this amendment,” Evans says.

Really? Could Evans really not be aware that, as discussed here, the law schools at both the University of Arizona and Arizona State give preferences to minorities in admissions? Is he also unaware of all the state programs that engage in preferential treatment listed in this report by the Goldwater Institute, mentioned here?

If Evans is really unaware of all these preferential programs, he is too uninformed about the state of his own state to be a reliable spokesman for anything. On the other hand, if he is aware of them, and he believes that current Arizona law already prohibits everything the initiative is designed to eliminate, then he of necessity must believe the state is currently engaged in massive defiance of the law.

Dumb, disingenuous, or duplicitous? DISCRMINATIONS reports; you decide.

Posted by John Rosenberg at 8:45 PM | Permalink | Say What? (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Peter Schmidt has a post on the Chronicle of Higher Education news blog yesterday discussing a new report from the Goldwater Institute that details a number of programs in Arizona that would be affected by the passage of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative.

After reading the post, be sure to take a look at the comments as well. Here’s a good one, responding to someone who defended the “looks like” standard for health professionals:

My mixed-race children ‘look like’ one parent more than the other. So, are they eligible for AA or not? Perhaps we should have a chart of ‘characteristic’ racial features so students can be properly classiifed – 30% white, 27.5% asian,... that’s the logical conclusion to this AA farce.

Ward Connerly’s comment also asks his typically astute questions:

1) Why does any institution have to be “representative?” 2) If “race” or ethnic group is the yardstick for determining
“representation,” what about those who don’t fit neatly into any of the “race” boxes? 3) How do you square our nation’s professed dedication to equal rights for all individuals, as enunciated in the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, with the prevailing practice of treating individuals differently on the basis of their “race,” gender, ethnicity, national origin?

“John” attempts, unsuccessfully, to answer Connerly’s questions. I’ll mention only two:

1. Because if it is not representative, it is probably working in ways that effectively favor one group over another.... 3. In the states that have passed your initiatives, Blacks and Hispanics are given a reduced chance of getting a college education – statistically much below that of whites.

The fallacy in No. 1 is quite common, but still quite fallacious. It is the assumption that “underrepresentation” or “disparities” or “underutilization” etc. are always and only the result of discrimination. It asumes that all groups are equally interested in, qualified for, and available for ... everything.

And No. 3 is simply wrong as a matter of fact. There is no evidence (because the evidence doesn’t exist) that ending racial and ethnic preferences reduces the chances of blacks or Hispanics to get a college education. It may reduce disproportionately (compared to other groups) their chances of admission to the most selective institutions, but clearly not to all institutions. Just as it’s not true that the only options are “Yale or jail,” it is equally true that one can get a fine education in California and Michigan without attending Berkeley, UCLA, or the University of Michigan.

Posted by John Rosenberg at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Say What? (19) | TrackBacks (0)

Doug MacEachern, an editorial writer at the Arizona Republic, argues in an article today that Ward Connerly’s confidence that the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative will pass may be misplaced. (In fact, he calls Connerly “a wee bit cocky.”)

After noting that similar initiatives have been passed in states far more liberal and Democratic than Arizona, MacEachern offers only one explanation for what he obviously hopes will be Arizona’s exceptionalism:

But Arizona is different from those states in one key respect. And it's not something that necessarily reflects well on this state: College admissions programs are the primary battleground of the racial-preference wars, and the fact is Arizona colleges are not terribly selective about who gets to attend.

As we’ve recently seen (here), it is not at all clear that preferential treatment is not practiced in Arizona, especially at its state law schools. But let us assume for the sake of argument that MacEachern is right, that preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity is not widespread enough to engender any opposition. But so, one might ask, what?

MacEachern’s point, so far as I can tell, is that Arizonans may vote against barring the state from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to anyone based on race or ethnicity because it doesn’t do so, or doesn’t do so very much. But if writing a core national value — that Americans have a right to be treated without regard to race, creed, or color — into the state constitution would not bar anything of value, then why vote against it? Why will civil rights groups, university administrators, and, yes, editorial writers at major newspapers vociferously oppose a measure that, according to editorial writer MacEachern, would have no measurable effect?

Is MacEachern saying that Arizonans oppose the principle of colorblind equality, i.e., the “without regard” principle, in principle, even where affirming it would not deprive them of anything some of them value? That would be odd, indeed.

If so, then Arizona really is different.

Posted by John Rosenberg at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Say What? (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Under a headline proclaiming (falsely) that “Initiative drive intend to bar governments from considering social factors in education,” The Arizona Daily Dispatch has a long news article today by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services defending the use of racial and ethnic preference in law school admissions. At least, given its placement, I think it was intended to be a news article, but perhaps the Daily Dispatch normally runs editorials that look like news stories. .

This story certainly made no pretense of being either fair or balanced, and the article’s headline is one of the most misleading I’ve seen in any newspaper; the initiative would not bar the consideration of “social factors,” only race, ethnicity, and sex. The article quoted extensively, and approvingly, the defense of racial/ethnic preference by the deans of the law schools at Arizona State (Patricia White) and the University of Arizona (Toni Massaro), but author Fischer couldn’t even find a whole sentence to quote from any supporter of the initiative, although he did extend to Max McPhail, the director of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative campaign, most of one sentence. As though that was far too much coverage, however, Fischer then promptly returned to Dean Massaro to take issue with McPhail’s one clause.

The argument of the deanly duo boils down to the familiar “exposure” necessity: students who are not themselves “diverse” need to be exposed to those who are. This point was made a number of different times and ways. Typical was this, which allows me to quote the one clause alloted to McPhail:

McPhail said diversity is a good thing. But he said it should come “not at the expense of where someone is being judge differently because of their race or their gender.’’

But Massaro said these factors are important for not just the education of the particular student admitted but the rest of the class. Consider, she suggested, teaching constitutional law to a class which includes a Native American student from a reservation with different cultural and legal traditions.

“It’s a positive value that informs the class discussion,’’ she said.

This point is not ridiculous, even though the value attributed here to the preferential admission of a Native American could also be achieved by something as unthreatening to the “without regard” principle as inviting a guest speaker for a day or two.

Actually, inviting guests to articulate “different cultural and legal traditions” would also have the virtue of lifting from the admissions committees the obligation they no doubt now feel to admit some CEOs to enliven and inform discussions of corporate law, old people for their essential views on trusts and estates, fishermen and ship captains for their angle on law of the sea, a boatload of foreigners from all over to provide international perspectives on international law, and tax cheats and felons for their unique and essential points of view on tax and criminal law.

Posted by John Rosenberg at 10:31 PM | Permalink | Say What? (4) | TrackBacks (0)

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.

UPDATE

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?

UPDATE II

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.

Posted by John Rosenberg at 6:28 PM | Permalink | Say What? (8) | TrackBacks (0)