Home Our Focus Areas Roger Clegg Columns Arizona and E pluribus unum

Arizona and E pluribus unum

Friday, 23 July 2010

This November, Arizonans will have the opportunity to ban discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex—a.k.a. affirmative action—in state and local government employment, contracting, and education, including higher education. They will be voting on the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, a Ward Connerly-led referendum. The Center for Equal Opportunity just submitted a formal statement to the secretary of state there that will be included with the official materials distributed by that office. Note the citation in it to two studies recently done by CEO, documenting the extremely heavy weight given to race and ethnicity in admission to Arizona’s two state law schools, at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University. (CEO also helped the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute in its research for the other study cited in our statement.) CEO played an important role in supporting the successful efforts to pass similar ballot initiatives in California (1996), Washington (1998), Michigan (2006), and Nebraska (2008). We are doing the same in Arizona, and look forward to success there this November as well! Here’s our Arizona statement: Argument by the Center for Equal Opportunity on the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative: 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. Such claims will be made because ACRI’s opponents know Arizonans oppose racial, ethnic, and gender discrimination of all kinds, whether it’s against whites or minorities, men or women. As one of the opposition’s leaders in another state said: "The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place. That's the only way we're going to win.”  But they failed to keep it off the ballot here, so now they have to use scare tactics. They won’t win: Join voters in California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska in leading the nation to fairness and equality. Vote YES on 107! Last but not least, The Washington Times last week quoted yours truly in an editorial that attacked, as I did, the use of racial, ethnic, and gender preferences in the Dodd-Frank "financial reform" bill.