Wouldn’t it be fine to not be able to detect a brutal,
racial hate crime?
Like many pro-Racial Privacy Initiative people, James Moon
certainly seems to think so. In his column, “Initiative
necessary to end racial inequality” (May 7), Moon presents
sophomoric reasons for advocating the initiative. His reasons lack
substantial research and seriously fail to calculate grave
consequences. In fact, his reasons serve only to remind us of the
importance of educating ourselves about the initiative before we
vote March, 2004.
The RPI ““ officially known as the Classification by Race,
Ethnicity, Color or National Origin (better yet labeled as the
Information Ban) ““ is an initiative proposed by University of
California Regent Ward Connerly. Connerly also spearheaded
Proposition 209, which eliminated the consideration of race in
education and employment in California.
The Information Ban, if passed in the March 2004 ballot, will
bar California’s state-funded public institutions ““
including UCs, Cal State Universities, elementary schools, law
enforcement and government health care facilities ““ from
collecting, sorting, organizing or publishing data classified by
race, ethnicity, color and national origin. In other words, CRECNO
will prohibit crucial research needed to improve our health,
education and much more.
Moon cursorily praises the initiative for its exemptions on
“medical research, law enforcement” and on matters that
“serve a compelling state interest.” By doing so, he
seriously fails to address the hidden repercussions behind such
exemptions in health care, law enforcement and the state’s
Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Though the Information Ban continues to permit racial
classification for “medical research subjects and
patients,” the initiative prevents collection of other common
forms of racially classified data.
Without such data, could we have known white women are the
primary victims of breast cancer or that Asian women’s risk
of breast cancer has increased by 80 percent over a period of two
decades? Without racially classified data, could we have learned
minority residents in Los Angeles and neighboring counties are more
likely to live near a facility that releases toxic chemicals
covered by the federal “right-to-know” law? Without a
doubt, CRECNO will prevent us from detecting racially and
ethnically dissimilar health care access and use, disease patterns
and exposure to environmental health hazards.
If CRECNO gets enacted, publicly accessible data on racial
profiling and hate crimes will become extremely hard to obtain.
Unfortunately, racial hate crimes and discrimination are still
prominent. In 2000 the California Department of Justice Division of
Criminal Justice Information Services reported that 63 percent of
1, 957 hate crimes were committed based on a person’s race or
ethnicity, with 31 percent of hate crimes occurring against blacks.
Of 27,999 employment discrimination reports, the number one factor
was race and ethnicity, with national origin or ancestry ranking
sixth.
Moon’s call for a “colorblind society” is
ridiculous. The damage by the “Information Ban” will go
beyond health, law enforcement and the DFEH, and into education.
Currently, the state of California and local school districts
collect educational performances of different races and genders in
order to build more equal opportunities for all students. Only
through racially classified data were we able to learn that black
and latino students have fewer resources (such as Advanced
Placement courses) and receive overwhelmingly smaller per-capita
spending. If CRECNO passes, such data will no longer be collected,
and progress in the educational system will be halted.
As insignificant as those “appropriate boxes” and as
innocuous as CRECNO may appear, it is crucial we educate ourselves
about the problems of this ballot initiative.
Oh is a third-year sociology student.