Archive for AzCRI
“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…
Filed under: AzCRI | |Comments off
The American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly will speak at a luncheon in Arizona on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. at the Prescott Resort.
The Republican Women of Prescott invited Connerly to talk about racial neutrality in government and other topics. In November, Arizona voters will vote yes or no on Proposition 107, which would amend the state constitution to bar their government from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals based on race in government employment, education, or contracting.
“We are thrilled to be having such a well-known author and patriot to be our guest speaker in August,” group president Kay Harlan said. “The public is always invited, and we hope many from our community will attend Mr. Connerly’s timely message on current race relations in the United States, especially since Arizona will be voting on Prop. 107 this November.”
Follow this link for more information and to RSVP.
Filed under: AzCRI, Ward Connerly | |Comments off
Proposition 107, which would bar the government from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups on the basis on race in government employment, contracting, and education, will appear on the November 2010 ballot in Arizona.
The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) will submit a formal statement to the Arizona secretary of state in support of Proposition 107. An excerpt:
“The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative will simply ban preferences and other discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and sex for state and local programs in education, employment, and contracting.
“ACRI will not end all ‘affirmative action’ programs. The original meaning of that term was taking positive steps to make sure there isn’t discrimination; that’s still fine. It’s also fine to ‘cast a wide net’–advertising and recruiting far and wide to get the best applicants possible. But affirmative action programs that actually discriminate will be made illegal, as they should be. And if a program is for disadvantaged people, it should be open to disadvantaged people of all colors.
“Opponents will say there is no need for ACRI because such discrimination isn’t happening in Arizona. But the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix has documented that there is plenty of such discrimination. See http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Img/preferencebrief.pdf . So have our studies of admissions to the two state law schools. See http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/623/119/ .
“Opponents will make other untrue claims–for instance, that ACRI will ban breast-cancer screening programs. Such claims are simply false; remember, California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska have passed such initiatives, and there are obviously still breast-cancer screening programs there.”
Filed under: AzCRI, Center for Equal Opportunity | |Comments off
The American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly is headed to the University of Arizona to talk about the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI) on October 28, from 4-5:30 p.m. See this page for more details.
The 2008 effort to add AzCRI to the state ballot failed after the campaign ran out of time to validate some 6,000 signatures. The proposed amendment would have barred the state government from discriminating against or granting preferences to any person on group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in government hiring, contracting, and admissions.
Filed under: AzCRI, Ward Connerly | |Comments off
Ward Connerly is right. John McCain, Republican presidential nominee, “tepidly endorsed” the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI), a measure that would have barred state and local governments from discriminating or granting preferences in hiring, contracting, and admissions in his home state.
“Although he supports the initiatives,” Connerly told the Associated Press, “I believe he would just as soon that it go away. He doesn’t want to come across as hostile to black people and Hispanics.”
Last summer, McCain reluctantly answered a direct question about whether he supported the AzCRI. “Yes, I do…I’ve always opposed quotas.”
Barack Obama, on the other hand, believes the government should be allowed to discriminate and grant preferential treatment based on skin color.
“I think in the past [McCain had] been opposed to these Ward Connerly initiatives as divisive,” he told the Associated Press. “And I think he’s right. These are not designed to solve a big problem, but they’re all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.”
Preferring one group of people over another based on race isn’t divisive, but advocating equal treatment for all is divisive? And this man may be our next president.
Unfortunately, AzCRI will not appear on the November ballot, but director Max McPhail said he’ll begin a new campaign for 2010. Residents of Colorado and Nebraska, do what the majority of voters in California, Washington, and Michigan did. Choose fairness and equality over political double-talk. And remember this, black voters: A government with the power to discriminate in favor of you has the power to discriminate against you.
Filed under: Amendment 46, AzCRI, Barack Obama, John McCain, Ward Connerly | |Comments off
Yesterday the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) released two reports that show law schools at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University, both supported by taxpayers, discriminate against white and Asian applicants in favor of blacks and Hispanics. The studies describe the discrimination as “severe.”
Black and Hispanic students are admitted with “significantly lower undergraduate” GPAs and LSAT scores. CEO chair Linda Chavez said the odds favor black students over white students at the University of Arizona 250 to 1 and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State.
“[N]early a thousand white students during the years we studied were denied admission even though they had higher undergraduate GPAs and LSATs than the average African American student who was admitted–and over a hundred Asian and Latino students were in the same boat with them,” she said.
Roger Clegg, CEO president, added that race weighed more heavily in admission decisions that residency status. “For instance, a white Arizonan in 2007 was about eight times less likely to be admitted to the University of Arizona than a black out-of-state applicant, and at Arizona State he would be twelve times less likely to be admitted.”
Undergraduate and medical school admissions at the University of Arizona also showed evidence of discrimination, though to a lesser degree. Download reports for both schools in Word documents: University of Arizona and Arizona State.
The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) is trying to put an end to such discrimination in taxpayer-supported schools. ACRI’s effort to add the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI) to the state ballot failed after the campaign ran out of time to validate some 6,000 signatures. The proposed amendment would have barred the state government from granting preferential treatment to any person on group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in government hiring, contracting, and admissions.
AzCRI director Max McPhail said a new campaign will begin after November to place the initiative on the November 2010 ballot. In the meantime, we’ll continue exposing discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity.”
Filed under: AzCRI, Center for Equal Opportunity, Linda Chavez, Max McPhail, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
||
