By Shauna Mecartea
Daily Bruin Contributor
The UC regent who spearheaded the end of affirmative action
plans to achieve a “color-blind” society by halting the
use of racial classification statewide.
Ward Connerly, UC regent and chair of the American Civil Rights
Coalition, began collecting signatures for the Racial Privacy
Initiative earlier this month.
The RPI would prohibit the state’s use of race, ethnicity,
color or national origin in the operation of public employment,
education or contracting.
For example, a box to check for the applicant’s ethnicity
could not be included in the UC application if RPI is enacted.
Connerly, who could not be reached for comment, has said that
“check-boxing” racial information on official documents
is not necessary in an increasingly multiracial society.
“The goal of the initiative is to acknowledge the
increasing irrelevance of race classifications,” Connerly
said in a statement. “The government should respect our
privacy and not collect such personal information”
But opponents say eliminating racial classification will only
conceal racial discrimination, not end it.
“You do not achieve a color-blind society by hiding the
problem or by not addressing it,” said Paule Takash, a
visiting Chicana/o studies professor and board member of the
William C. Velasquez Institute.
But according to Kevin Nguyen, executive director of the ACRC,
the old racial classification system is archaic and simply does not
work in such a diverse society.
“There has been more improper and malevolent use of racial
data and racial tracking in history,” said Nguyen.
The Holocaust, South African apartheid and India’s caste
system illustrate the detrimental effects of racial classification,
according to the ACRC.
But other opponents of the RPI said eliminating racial
classification on documents will not end racial discrimination.
“(The RPI) will make us color- blind; color-blind to
discrimination and the racism that is out there because we are no
longer able to track it,” said student Regent Justin
Fong.
Fong said the UC Board of Regents, a legislative body that has
jurisdiction over educational policies within the UC system, should
shift away from political issues and focus on its main issue
““ education.
Connerly’s past political actions, which involved the end
of affirmative action in California with 1996’s Proposition
209, and in the UC system with SP-1 and SP-2 in 1995, brought
considerable heat to the board.
“I would hope this is not going to repeat what happened
with SP-1 and Proposition 209,” Fong said. “I would be
really upset if this draws the board into another political
matter.”
Because prior political participation was so controversial, some
officials want the board’s political ties cut.
Fong said Connerly should either resign as a regent or wait
until his term has expired before becoming politically active to
avoid this sort of situation.
Even though the language of the RPI states that California will
not classify any individual by race, some exceptions are permitted,
but with the strict stipulations.
To be excluded from the measure, the legislature must
specifically identify that the said classification fulfills a
“a compelling state interest,” is approved by a
two-thirds majority in both houses, and by the governor as
well.
Law enforcement officers could still use racial classification
for describing particular persons for law enforcement duties,
according to the RPI.
Also, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and medical
research would be exempt from the RPI conditions.
Fong said he is worried the rhetoric of the initiative will
confuse voters, like Proposition 209 did in 1996. He hopes voters
will be properly educated on the RPI measure before a decision is
made.
Opponents say if the RPI makes the ballot and is passed by
voters, it will not present solutions to racism.
“It will hamper any future efforts to determine to what
extent racial discrimination might be practiced,” said
Takash, who is also a supporter of the UCLA Affirmative Action
Coalition.
But ACRC affiliates believe that the RPI is the answer to the
increasing diversity in California.
“What we’re doing is pro-active, it’s
anticipating social needs of the state,” said Nguyen.
Tony Tolbert, assistant director of outreach at the UCLA School
of Law, said eliminating racial data would not allow outreach staff
to serve all sectors of the community.
“It would make our work more difficult from our
standpoint,” Tolbert said, referring to outreach programs
like Law Fellows Early Academic Outreach Program.
Although no race-based criteria is required for admissions into
the programs, statistical racial data helps to ensure that the
entire community is being served, Tolbert said.
A total of 670,816 signatures are needed by August 31 for it to
reach the March 2002 ballot. A high threshold of signatures are
needed because a constitutional amendment would be made if the
measure passed.
According to Nguyen, the quest for signatures to bring the
measure to the March 2002 ballot is aided by many volunteers, but
Fong said the ACRC will hire professional people to find signatures
to acquire the amount necessary.
“It’s a money game. If you have enough money, you
can buy enough signatures,” Fong said.