|
Honorary Co-Chairs
U.S. Representative Raul M. Grijalva
State Senator Paula A. Aboud
State Representative Daniel Patterson
Richard Fimbres, Tucson City Council, Ward
5
Lea Marquez Peterson, President, Tucson
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Dr. June Webb-Vignery, Republican of the
Old School
Ned Norris, Chairman of the Tohono O'odham
Nation
Nathan Ginn, Chinese Cultural Association
Clarence Boykins, Southern Arizona Black
Chamber of Commerce
Attorney Vince Rabago, Campaign
Spokesperson,
(Please call or email Vince for speaking engagements
vince4az@gmail.com
602-492-8429)
Welcome Friends of Equality,
The Arizona Legislature has done it again.
They have imposed their will on your November Ballot by
seeking to make equal opportunity illegal under Arizona’s
constitution. Proposition 107 is a clear and present
danger to all gains and accomplishments of the past
four decades achieved by women and people of color and
seriously undermines the benefits of diversity and the
essential goal of progressing toward a global view of
the world in education, the economy and politics.
This proposed amendment to Arizona’s constitution is put
forth by an entity that is not of Arizona. It is by a
California institute, deceptively named the American Civil
Rights Institute (ACRI), and heavily financed
nationally by a cozy circle of
well-funded
conservative political operatives
who have been backing the national assault on
diversity policies since the early 1990s. The ACRI’s
founder,
Ward Connerly
in a speech to the Heritage Foundation
in March of 2007 referred to them as “Our own vast right
wing conspiracy.”1
This anti-equal opportunity initiative being
shopped around the country provides that:
|
“The State shall not discriminate against or
grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on
the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin
in the operation of public employment, public education or
public contracting.”
Read the Deceptive Prop. 107 Text
|
The sole purpose
of the ballot measure is contained in the five words “or
grant preferential treatment to,” which have been
consistently interpreted to eliminate a state’s ability to
maintain even the very limited equal opportunity efforts
that are permissible under Supreme Court equal protection
jurisprudence.2
Prop.107 is bad for our community. It’s
divisive. It’s ill-intended. It will immediately reestablish
the old norms - which are barriers, which is unequal
opportunity. The proposition will do away with outreach,
recruitment, financial support and mentoring programs
through education, employment and state contracting.
Expected Impacts of Prop 107.
While the opponents say equal opportunity is
no longer needed, “We can look at people’s needs, their
income, their social condition, instead.” This initiative
would do no such thing; it would not reform
equal opportunity to account for economic factors. Rather,
Prop 107 would outlaw them
completely.
The ban has several major components:
To
deny/restrict the nation’s best and brightest Latina/o,
African-American, Native-American, and white women access to
the nation’s flagship public universities (institutions of
higher learning that are sometimes known as Public Ivies,
which is defined as being the top thirty or so in the United
States). These institutions bring in the top faculty,
establish academic centers of excellence, secure significant
federal dollars, and recruit the top students in the nation;
are usually very competitive in the research field, have a
global perspective, have a huge role in stimulating social
and economic development,3 and provides the nation and the
world with future leaders.
Study after study finds that the primary effect of equal
opportunity at flagship schools in producing highly educated
women and people of color is quite substantial. Bowen and
Bok (1998) show that dropout rates of women and people of
color from very elite undergraduate and graduate schools are
quite low, and the impacts of attending these schools on
their earning and career paths are quite positive. Other
studies (e.g, Sigal and Tienda, 2005) confirm that
graduation rates rise significantly with the quality of the
school.
As
we have seen in California, and elsewhere where this plan
has become law, the number of women and people of color
entrance to flagship public institutions has dropped
dramatically.
Another major component of anti-equal opportunity is
contracting and procurement programs which concerns business
ownership and growth. Hundred of billions of dollars
annually are doled out by the federal, state and local
governments to private companies for the purchase of goods
and services, including the building of roads and freeways,
schools, universities, airports and prisons. Prop 107
bars the use of equal opportunity in contracting and
procurement programs.4
What has never been widely reported in the coverage of
Connerly’s campaigns are his ties to the large public works
contractors and construction industry organizations that
stand to benefit tremendously from eliminating programs that
help level the playing field for women-and minority-owned
businesses.5
Data from Grand Rapids, Michigan (after implementation of a
similar measure) suggests significant harm to minority-owned
business enterprises (MBEs) and women-owned business
enterprises (WBEs). Construction project dollars going to
MBEs declined by 45% and the amount going to
WBEs dropped by 70%.6
Fundamentally, equal opportunity is a global term applied to
any one of a number of strategies whose purpose is to
promote and ultimately achieve equality of opportunity.
Thus it is applicable to employment, education, housing,
voting – in sum, to every facet of life.7
This nation was founded on the idea that we all have basic
rights. Full inclusion for all relevant stakeholders
contributes to a better society because it affords people
dignity and fairness. Do we really want to go back to an
age when a single group dominated our schools, jobs,
and all economic institutions? To do so will lead to
increased conflict between the well-to-do and the have-nots,
with the attendant social and economic costs.
|
Even white males have a stake in equal opportunity. They
have wives, daughters, mothers and others who are in the
workforce, making money to pay the mortgage. Without equal
opportunity, those women would have less opportunity and
bring home less pay. |
What truly is sad about Ward Connerly, his rich white
benefactors, is that they do not understand the loyalty that
women and people of color have toward this nation and the
dignity in which they have conducted themselves in the
absence of justice and recognition for their efforts and
contributions. Until then we will have to endure racial
rivalries, gender inequities and the constant assaults. One
should not expect women or minorities to believe that racism
and sexism is on the decline or that diversity based
programs are no longer needed until we reach the time when
mutual respect is present.
Whatever faults may be attributed to its implementation,
equal opportunity has moved us closer to the American ideal
of a truly inclusive society. This is a wake-up call to all
Americans who cherish the vision of an integrated America, a
common humanity, and equality before the law.8 Don’t be
immobilized by the irrationality of those who support a
return to the pre-sixties era of exclusion, prejudice, and
discrimination and call it civil rights.
_____________________
1
Lee Cokorinos, Equal Justice Society 3-Newsletter – Issue
10-Summer 2007.
2
Melissa Hart, Associate Professor Law, University of
Colorado Law School, The state-by-State Assault on Equal
Opportunity,
The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups, pg.160.
3
Patrick Riccards Improving Education Through Effective
Communications available at http://blog eduflack
com/2009/02/24/
flagship-university-vs-localcollege.sapx
4
Ms. Magazine, available at www.msmagazine.com/winter/winter2008/WardConnerlyPart1.asp
5
See Ms. Magazine, supra note 4.
6
See
Hart, supra note 2.
7
Ricardo R. Fernandez, Exclusion and Inclusion: The Impact
of Affirmative Action, U.S. Society & Values, August 1997.
8
Carol M. Swain, The New White Nationalism in America:
It’s Challenge to Integration, Cambridge University
Press 2002.
|