“Should women and minorities be given a little nudge upwards when it comes to government contracts and university admissions? … That’s a question voters will get to answer in the November general election.” (Source)
Voters in Arizona will decide whether to amend the state constitution to bar their government from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals based on race in employment, education, or contracting. The author of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, Senator Russell Pearce, also authored Proposition 107.
Barbara Atwood, a race and sex preferences proponent who teaches at the University of Arizona, gives an example of what Prop. 107 would bar. “Any efforts in the college of nursing to recruit men so that there would be some better representation of men in the nursing field would be gone.”
The obvious question is, why should men be better represented in nursing? Why the obsession with group representation? Regardless, recruiting more men, women, blacks, or Asians, because they’re men, women, black, or Asian means denying someone else placement based on race or sex. Does the ostensibly noble pursuit of “more representation” justify allowing the government to treat individuals differently based on these factors?
People who opposed measures like Prop. 107 also claim such bans would affect programs that help mostly women and children, like domestic violence assistance.
“It’s completely false,” Jennifer Gratz told the KOLD. “The opponents know that’s just a scare tactic to try to keep people from voting for it.”
Measures like Prop. 107 are carefully crafted and precisely worded. The language clearly applies to government employment, contracting, and education, with the purpose of preventing the government from making race or sex a job or admissions qualification.
Domestic violence shelters don’t fall into these categories. Even if they did, Jennifer Gratz told me, there would be an exception for bone fide qualifications based on sex. The four states that ban preferences still have domestic violence shelters.
Nice try, Ms. Atwood.
Addendum: I think “bone fide qualifications based on sex” is worth exploring. To be continued…
Comments on this entry are closed.