Racial data ban in state advances
By Michael Bazeley
Mercury News Posted on Tue, Apr. 30, 2002
California's most impassioned opponent of racial preferences is stirring debate again as he prepares to put a new measure before voters that would bar the state from collecting and using racial data.
Ward Connerly, the Sacramento businessman and University of California regent who drafted California's anti-affirmative-action law, turned in 980,000 signatures last week in an attempt to qualify his Racial Privacy Initiative for the state ballot.
Connerly's plan would prohibit the state from classifying anyone by ``race, ethnicity, color or national origin'' or collecting racial data relating to public education, hiring or contracting. Results of a Field Poll, which surveyed the state's voters about the new measure, are expected to be released Wednesday.
Almost immediately, a coalition of health care professionals, environmentalists and civil-rights activists emerged to oppose the initiative, suggesting that voters in the nation's most diverse state could once again be faced with a high-pitched battle about race and ethnicity.
``Once we stop this nonsense in California, we will stop the ugly career of Ward Connerly, who has made a career thinking he is one minority who speaks for the rest of us,'' said Alice Huffman, state president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, perhaps foreshadowing the tone of debate.
Building on Prop. 209
Connerly, who is black, crafted the initiative as a follow-up to his Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative-action law that voters passed in 1996. Because of that law, the state is already barred from considering race and ethnicity in public hiring, contracting and education. He believes the next logical step is to stop the state from collecting data it can no longer use.
Connerly says the complexity of California's racial makeup -- he points to increases in mixed-race marriages and multiracial births -- demands a new way of thinking about race. He wants California to stop placing people into ``artificial categories'' and to begin to create a ``colorblind state.''
``This initiative is designed to represent a bold departure from the race consciousness we have,'' said Connerly.
The measure provides exemptions for medical research and the state housing program, and allows lawmakers to add other exemptions with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
But opponents say Connerly's romantic notions about race ignore the inequities that continue to harm many people of color. Housing and job discrimination, inequitable health care, and hate crimes are all still prevalent in society, opponents say.
``We cannot cover our eyes and our ears in the hopes that problems will go away,'' said Maria Blanco, national counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Opponents say the initiative would be especially harmful to health professionals and educators, who might be prohibited from studying certain groups of people and developing programs designed to help them.
``If the routine collection of race and ethnicity data is prohibited, we would not know that black children have higher asthma rates or that white women are more likely to get breast cancer,'' said Dr. Carmen Nevarez, medical director of the Public Health Institute, a non-profit health organization in Berkeley. ``Race and ethnicity is a powerful tool that continues to help us predict where disease will occur.''
Connerly accuses opponents of ``fear-mongering'' and points to a clause in the initiative that exempts ``medical research subjects and patients'' from the new law. But opponents say the exemption would only apply to a small number of people.
Also worried are researchers, academics and demographers who routinely rely on state-collected race and ethnicity data for their work.
``All you have to do is look at the state to see that we are the most diverse place in the country,'' said Al Camarillo, a Stanford history professor and director of the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity. ``If you can't understand how these factors play out by looking at the data, how will we know where we're going as a state? It makes sense to have this information.''
2002 or 2004?
It's not clear yet when the initiative will be on the ballot.
Connerly had started collecting signatures to qualify for the November ballot. But now he is trying to manipulate the signature-counting process so he can get bumped to the March 2004 ballot. Connerly believes his chances will be better in a state primary with a smaller turnout, when his initiative is not overshadowed by a gubernatorial election.
``We have some deep-seated attitudes about race, and we need to be able to educate people about that,'' he said. ``But you can't do that in the heart of the gubernatorial campaign.''
Most people, Connerly included, doubt his delay tactic will work. So Connerly and his opponents are gearing up for a fall showdown.
Connerly vehemently denied suggestions that the state Republican Party asked him to delay the initiative, saying, ``My party doesn't tell me what to do.''
A headache for GOP
But as with similar initiatives in the past, the Racial Privacy Initiative is creating a headache for the state GOP. Although party leaders have not taken a formal position on the initiative, political insiders say it is no secret Republicans do not want a ``wedge issue'' debate detracting from efforts to elect a Republican governor this fall.
``It could be used to inflame voter passions; then it whipsaws Republican candidates,'' said GOP political strategist Ray McNally. ``And it's certainly not what Republicans want to be talking about when there are other, more important issues that voters care about.''
Even though these types of initiatives have populist support in California -- in the past decade voters have cut immigrant benefits and banned bilingual education and affirmative action -- Republicans are trying to expand their base of voters, and Connerly's campaign could hurt those efforts.
``The idea may be intellectually sound,'' said Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, ``but is it wise in terms of broadening political appeal?''
bayarea.com
* * * |
