Sandoval is a fifth-year political science and history student
and MEChA Retention Coordinator.
By Antonio Sandoval
Ward Connerly is at it again. He never tires of misusing his
role as a UC Regent to carry out his own reactionary right-wing
agenda, an agenda that should be carried on at his own expense,
outside of the university. His role as a regent gives him the
illusion of legitimacy that allows him to continue this
crusade.
The contributions that Connerly has made to the University of
California, if any, have been overshadowed by the destruction he
has caused by carrying the cause of reactionary conservatism to the
national level.
 Illustration by HINGYI KHONG/Daily Bruin The overall
result of his tenure has been the decreased presence of people of
color at the UC and the loss of confidence that minority
communities, the actual majority of California’s population,
have in the university. It is a system into which they pay taxes
and from which they are systematically excluded.
Connerly’s latest affront to diversity comes as a result
of his “California Racial Privacy Initiative,” which
proposes to stop the collection of statistical data regarding race.
The effect of this ban is to invalidate any criticism by
progressive members of our community who rightfully claim that the
end of affirmative action has adversely affected the UC system and
beyond.
Connerly is being bankrolled by his American Civil Rights
Institute, a reactionary group formed to implement the vision of
supposed “colorblindness,” which evolved out of the
anti-Civil Rights struggles of segregationists in the 1950s and
1960s. They want to “fix” the problem that the Civil
Rights Movement created, and this initiative is a natural
progression in a series of racist laws aimed at those they view as
gullible statewide voters.
The measure ensures that the negative results of Proposition 209
cannot continue to be exposed. Kevin Nguyen, one of the principal
backers of the initiative, and executive director of the American
Civil Rights Coalition, is disingenuous when he claims that the
measure aims to prevent misuses of statistical data, as he asserts
was done to justify the internment of Japanese citizens during
World War II.
In fact, the initiative serves as a shield to protect those
guilty of discriminatory practices from being exposed. The real
concern of this initiative is not with the well being of others.
The proponents aim to perpetuate their ideological crusade, which
disregards the well-being of the vast majority of the people and
puts the well-being of the rich and elite first.
Let there be no mistake: this initiative is the second part of
Proposition 209. These misguided individuals were not satisfied
with the educational disaster they have brought upon people of
color. Now they want to ensure that there can be no limit to their
selfish schemes. What a surprise!
Let it also be clear that the California Racial Privacy
Initiative will go to the voters for one reason. Their goal is the
systematic resegregation of California’s system of higher
education, and it is at hand. The people who will benefit the most
from these policies will be the usual conservative, privileged
elite ““ the people who pay for Connerly’s ideological
cause.
The California Racial Privacy Initiative, according to the
California Libertarian Party, which recently endorsed it, mentions
that this law is taken directly from Proposition 209. This new law
would prohibit the collection of racial data in state education,
hiring and contracting. The result would limit any analysis of
underrepresented minority groups and their place in the public
service and education sectors.
This law would also affect UC outreach efforts by ensuring that
the university has no access to data that might help ensure
diversity at our schools. It would also impact efforts such as
those of the UCLA Student Retention Center and the Student
Initiated Outreach Committee, which serve to retain populations
most affected by low retention rates, and help bring students from
underrepresented communities into the UC system.
Additionally, in order for the proponents of this initiative to
gain the support of minority voters, they will claim that this law
will stop racial profiling. But interestingly, law
enforcement’s often dubious use of racial data and abuse of
minorities have been excluded from the initiative. The losers will
only be people of color ““ this cannot be disputed.
It may seem too early to concern ourselves with this initiative,
considering it will likely be on the March 2002 ballot.
Unfortunately, as with many other past racist initiatives, it will
take time for many of us to tell others not to sign any petitions
that will be circulated and to prepare to fight against this
initiative when it gets on the ballot.
With all the discussion on the California Racial Privacy
Initiative come these questions: When will Ward Connerly be
satisfied? Will he ever stop using his position as a UC Regent to
promote divisive wedge issues?
No one would listen to Connerly if he were speaking on behalf of
Connerly and Associates, the firm he owns. But people do listen to
Connerly because of his position on the Board of Regents. We
definitely do not need Connerly’s sequel to Proposition 209,
but maybe we need to ensure that Connerly’s abuse of power
ends. He has used his position to push for educational exclusion,
which is contrary to what he should be doing.
After we fight against this initiative we should turn our
attention to doing what we should have done long ago ““ oust
Connerly from his soap box. Don’t support Connerly. Strongly
oppose the California Racial Privacy Initiative!