June 2010

Decline to State Race

by lbarber on 06/24/2010

in General

library cardThis CNN story reveals some of the complications that crop up when the government asks people to state their race on government forms.

According to a new government report, some Census workers “incorrectly communicated” questions about race during face-to-face interviews, and others made assumptions about the race of interviewees based on appearance.

The story frames the problem as miscommunication and incorrect assumptions (one-drop rule redux?) about interviewees. The real problem is the government asking Americans to state their race. Not only should the government not ask about race, the more multiracial America becomes, the more difficult it will be to classify people along rigid racial or ethnic lines.

One of the Census Bureau’s frequently asked questions is why the Census asks about race. The answer (PDF):

“Information on race is required for many federal programs and is critical in making policy decisions, particularly for civil rights. States use these data to meet legislative redistricting principles. Race data also are used to promote equal employment opportunities and to assess racial disparities in health and environmental risks.”

Why is race critical in making policy decisions, and how does checking a box on a form “promote equal employment opportunities”? Government policy is supposed to be colorblind, and the law protects the rights of all individuals, regardless of race. If someone faces racial discrimination, he may seek redress. Checking a box on a government form doesn’t protect his rights.

As to racial disparities, they are not proof of discrimination. The government too often uses the existence of disparities as an excuse to grant preferences to people based on race. As some races are more susceptible to certain diseases, however, collecting race for medical data may be legitimate. But this exception doesn’t require people to check race boxes on forms unrelated to medical data collection.

Why haven’t “we the people” demanded our government stop the race-box practice? If you’re as frustrated about it as I am, sign the Decline to State Race petition, and let’s try to turn the project into a national movement. Government policy should be colorblind, but America won’t accomplish the goal unless we retire the government from the race business.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Laurie Morrow on Defending Proposition 209

by lbarber on 06/22/2010

in Judiciary

California’s Proposition 209, which amended the state constitution to bar the government from granting preferences to or discriminating against individuals or groups based on race, faces legal challenges after almost 14 years. The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigration Rights By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) filed suit earlier this year, and the Pacific Legal Foundation seeks to intervene in the federal lawsuit.

Laurie Morrow, blogging for the Democracy Project, comments on the latest challenge to overturn the voters’ will in California.

“Rather than defend the will of California voters and the Ninth Circuit, defendants Governor Schwarzenegger, President Yudof, and the University of California Board of Regents have moved to be dismissed from the [BAMN] suit.

“Unlike those entrusted with the governance of the state of California and of its state institutions of higher education, other citizens have the moral courage to demand  California’s constitution remain in alignment with Dr. King’s dream and with the will of the people. The California Association of Scholars, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Ward Connerly, himself a former University of California Regent, a member of the California Association of Scholars, and President of the American Civil Rights Institute, have jointly filed a motion to defend Proposition 209. Here is the Pacific Legal Foundation’s case summary; you can also download a copy of the Motion to Intervene from the same page.
…
“Not everyone shares Dr. King’s belief that a colorblind society is a good thing. Some prefer a society that recognizes race as a qualification for a job or for admission to a college.”

This point can’t be stressed enough. Allowing our government to consider race a job or admissions qualification is a dangerous proposition. Among preference proponents, such policies that favor blacks are “good”; policies that favor whites are “bad.” But a government with the power to discriminate in favor of blacks also has the power to discriminate against blacks. The goal is to keep government from granting preferences to or discriminating against individuals based on race for any reason.

Californians who support colorblind government policy should support candidates committed to protecting and defending Proposition 209.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Browne and Clegg on Felon Voting

by lbarber on 06/21/2010

in Judiciary,Roger Clegg

Although federal law allows states to bar felons from voting, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Washington state is violating the Voting Rights Act by barring felons from voting.

Sharon Browne, lead attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, co-wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, in which they argue otherwise. An excerpt of: “Felons have lost their right to vote.”

“If a state were to use its felon disenfranchisement laws deliberately to keep blacks from voting, as was sometimes done in the Jim Crow era, then it is clear it would be in violation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has so ruled. But what if there is no such discriminatory intent: Is it enough to show that a disproportionate number of, say, African Americans are in prison?

“The answer is clearly no when it comes to the Constitution. The claim in Farrakhan, however, is that such disproportionate ‘results’ are enough to prove a violation of the federal voting rights law. The intent and history of the law refutes this claim.
…
“What’s more, the Constitution explicitly assumes that felons may be barred from voting. The 14th Amendment — which, like the 15th, was passed during Reconstruction to ensure equal treatment of African Americans — acknowledges that states can disenfranchise people for ‘participation in rebellion, or other crime.’ So an interpretation of the Voting Rights Act to bar felon disenfranchisement would not only be inconsistent with the intent of that statute, it would exceed Congress’ constitutional authority.”

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Language or Skin Color Diversity?

by lbarber on 06/18/2010

in General

A non-English-speaking woman living in an English-speaking city in an English-speaking country was robbed. She couldn’t find a cop who spoke Spanish. Someone in the Boston Police Department told her she needed to speak English. (Source)

From this anecdote, which the woman shared at a city council meeting, we get this:

“The executive director of the advocacy group, Oíste, Negretti blamed the experience on a shortage of blacks and Latinos in higher positions and specialized units on the Boston Police Dept. Negretti contends the shortage hurts performance and perception, even hampering the ability to combat youth violence.”

How about hiring Spanish-speaking officers of any color to translate for Spanish speakers? Would that qualify as a diversity effort, or would the police department be coerced to hire based on race?

Police Commissioner Ed Davis seized the opportunity at the city council meeting to complain about the pencil-and-paper civil service exams on which hiring and promoting decisions are based. He said the exams are barriers to minority hiring and aren’t valid for measuring an applicant’s or candidate’s skills in any case. Davis also said, “I will not change my standards. I will not pick people based on race. They have to do the job.”

According to the article, minorities account for 40 percent of the appointed (by Davis) command staff, “above the levels when the department still used race-based hiring,” but for positions in which a civil service exam is required, the numbers are lower.

Draw your own conclusions.

Complaints lodged and lawsuits filed against the use of objective, valid employment exams signify a slow march toward their extinction. It’s ironic. Civil service exams were implemented to prevent race- and politically based decisions. Now, people claim the exams are discriminatory. Whether one considers the exams valid or not, dropping the requirement would mean that police departments lowered standards instead of challenging people to rise up against expectations.

Some people call that progress.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Defend California’s Proposition 209

by lbarber on 06/17/2010

in Judiciary,Pacific Legal Foundation,Ward Connerly

Jennifer GratzEarlier this year I blogged about the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigration Rights By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) filing a lawsuit challenging Proposition 209, approved by 54 percent of California voters in 1996. The law bars the state from granting preferences to or discriminating against individuals or groups based on race in government employment, contracting, and education.

BAMN contends, in so many words, that certain racial minorities have a constitutional right to preferential treatment. Among other things, BAMN said Prop. 209 “promised a ‘color-blind’ Constitution. But this was and is a lie…”

The law’s purpose was to create colorblind government policy, not to guarantee equality of outcome. Defying common sense, BAMN compared Prop. 209 to Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which held that states were permitted to enact laws that separated the races, as long as segregated facilities were “equal.” Plessy permitted racial discrimination. In contrast, Prop. 209 bars the government from such actions.

But why quibble?

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLE) has issued a call to defend Prop. 209. PLE seeks to intervene in the federal lawsuit.

“Committed supporters with historical ties to Prop. 209 need to be part of this lawsuit,” said PLF lead attorney Sharon Browne. “They must be allowed to intervene because the voters who passed Prop. 209 deserve to be represented, and Prop. 209′s guarantee of equal rights and equal opportunities must be defended credibly and to the max.”

PLE notes that named defendant Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed a government contracting racial quota bill last year, has moved to be dismissed from the suit.

“The governor and the regents are trying to backpedal out of defending Prop. 209,” Browne said. “And Attorney General Jerry Brown has already tried to sabotage Prop. 209 by sending a brief to the state Supreme Court calling it unconstitutional.”

The American Civil Rights Institute‘s (ACRI) Ward Connerly added: “Every individual in this country – including every student and every university applicant – deserves a full measure of equal treatment, not categorization by race or sex. This is the mandate of Prop. 209, and 14 years after its enactment it is time to move forward and fully embrace that goal.”

(Photo: ACRI’s Jennifer Gratz of Gratz v. Bollinger hounded by BAMN protesters)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

‘Affirmative Action’ Means Lowered Standards

June 17, 2010

For those who deny the link between “affirmative action” and lowered standards, look no further than this lead sentence in a USA Today article: “Colleges and universities should adopt affirmative-action policies based on socioeconomic status, argues a new report that finds the most disadvantaged students on average score 784 points lower on the SAT than [...]

Read the full article →

Western Michigan U’s Race-Neutral Scholarship Program

June 15, 2010

On November 7, 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters chose to bar the state from granting preferences to or discriminating against individuals or groups in government employment, contracting, and education. Western Michigan University (WMU) has gotten the message. The school’s Incentive Scholarship Program was once Hispanic-only; now it’s open to all students, regardless of race. [...]

Read the full article →

Roger Clegg on Non-Preferred Minorities

June 11, 2010

From the Pope Center (emphasis added): “In November 2006 Jian Li filed a discrimination complaint against Princeton University. He graduated in the top 1 percent of his high-school class and received a perfect score of 2400 on the SAT, as well as perfect or near-perfect scores on the SAT subject-matter tests in math, physics, and chemistry. But [...]

Read the full article →

Newsflash: Elena Kagan Supports Racial Preferences

June 10, 2010

It shouldn’t surprise anyone to know solicitor general and U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is a liberal who supports racial discrimination and preferences. From Roger Clegg at National Review Online: “The Piscataway case involved a school board’s decision to lay off a white schoolteacher because of a desire for more racial diversity on the [...]

Read the full article →

Florida’s Hispanic Students Lead Gain in Reading Scores

June 10, 2010

I’ve argued that one reason racial preferences exist is the academic achievement gaps between the races. The government has been trying for years to close the gap, or at least to narrow it. School choice has been floated as one possible solution to narrowing the gap. In Florida, school choice gets credit for narrowing the [...]

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Read the full article →

← Previous Entries