September 2010

Great news on the racial neutrality front. Arizona’s Proposition 107 will appear on the November ballot.

Voters in the Grand Canyon State will decide whether to allow their government to continue discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups in employment, education, and contracting based on race. From the Arizona Daily Sun:

Ward Connerly has carved a career, and a reputation, out of striking down affirmative action, starting with university programs in his home state of California. Now Connerly and his American Civil Rights Institute are bringing the fight to Arizona.

Proposition 107 seeks to amend the Arizona Constitution to ban state government and municipalities from giving preferential treatment on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity or national origin. This includes everything from state-funded programs that help women and minorities in areas where there is a disparity, such as science education, to hiring quotas in the state university system.

The programs are designed to correct inequities in gender or race, but Connerly thinks they’re just another form of discrimination.

“Why should anybody’s tax money be used to discriminate?” he said. “I wouldn’t want anyone discriminating against me.”

I can wish until the sun falls from the sky that reporters cease using the euphemism “affirmative action,” when racial preferences are the subject.

The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) is not opposed to the government casting a wider net to include more qualified racial minorities in the hiring or admissions pool. ACRI opposes the government making race a job or admissions qualification. ACRI believes government law and policy should be colorblind. ACRI advocates racial neutrality in government. ACRI believes no one should face discrimination on account of his skin color.

Let’s hope a majority of Arizona voters agrees!

Related post and article:

• Just one Nit to Pick
• Arizona voters to decide on affirmative action ban

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Would it surprise you to know the health care “reform” bill’s racial preferences provisions were never removed, despite the U.S. Commission on Civil Right’s advice that Congress do so?

An earlier version passed by the U.S. House of Representatives contained this language:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of…Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

This and similar provisions remained in the bill and became law along with the rest. Download the 974-page document in PDF.

Medical schools and other organizations that demonstrate a “record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or from a rural or disadvantaged background” will be given priority for federal funding. Since “rural or disadvantaged background” would include members of underrepresented minority groups, why make specific reference to these minority groups?

Proponents of race-based grant and contract awards contend that “underrepresented minority groups” attending medical school are more likely to work in “underserved” areas (read: black), and their presence might help reduce health care disparities. The Commission’s research disputed these claims. The Commission cited evidence that showed increasing access to high quality doctors of any color and improving overall quality of care would help reduce health care disparities more than eliminating racial disparities in the medical profession itself.

Essentially, the government is encouraging medical schools to lower standards to admit racial minorities, because these minorities will more likely choose to practice in areas with heavy black populations. The tacit assumption is that white and non-preferred minority doctors somehow discriminate against preferred minority patients; therefore, the government has provided an incentive to schools to balance things out. Sound silly? Yes, it does, but that is the rationale, stripped of its political correct jargon.

Diane Cohen, a lawyer with the Goldwater Institute, offers this:

“Certainly, attracting talented people to medicine is a worthy goal. But individuals should not be singled out and given special benefits based on their race to reach that goal. Likewise, the Obama administration should not force hospitals and schools to recruit students based on race to obtain federal money.

“There is something we can do right here in Arizona to ensure equal treatment under the law. The Goldwater Institute is working in federal court to strike down the entire health care bill. Also, Arizona voters will consider Proposition 107 during the Nov. 2 general election. Called the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, Prop. 107 offers an amendment to the state constitution that forbids race-based policies for any taxpayer-funded agency or program. The citizens of Arizona have the power to say ‘yes’ to equal opportunity for all Arizonans, and ‘no’ to unfair and unlawful policies that focus on anyone’s race or ethnic background.”

One day, when the government decides to step up its preferential treatment of the growing Hispanic population, perhaps even liberal blacks will understand why racial neutrality in government is the best practice.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }