December 10, 2007

Oklahoma Measure Limiting Affirmative Action Appears to Be Headed to the Ballot

Backers of a measure to limit affirmative action in Oklahoma say they have gathered enough petition signatures to put the referendum before the state’s voters in November 2008.

The Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative — the state group behind the measure — has until the end of the day today to submit enough petition signatures to Oklahoma’s secretary of state to get its proposed amendment to the state Constitution on the ballot. W. Devin Resides, an Oklahoma City lawyer who is a leader of the effort, said this morning that he felt confident the group had obtained enough signatures to meet state requirements, and he planned to submit the documents this afternoon.

Campaigns are under way to get similar measures on the November 2008 ballot in four other states — Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, and New Mexico — as part of what the group coordinating the effort, the American Civil Rights Coalition, is calling “Super Tuesday for Equal Rights.”

In contrast to their counterparts in the other four states, who generally have until spring or summer to gather signatures, those in Oklahoma had a much shorter deadline: 90 days from when state officials certified their proposed ballot language, in early September.

The group needed a minimum of about 138,900 signatures, the equivalent of 15 percent of the votes cast in the state’s last gubernatorial election. It initially hoped to gather more than 165,000 signatures, to ensure it would still have enough if some were invalidated. The group had difficulty reaching its goal because of the short deadline and a state law prohibiting it from hiring people from out of state to circulate petitions, but it nonetheless has gathered well over the minimum needed, Mr. Resides said. —Peter Schmidt

Comments

1. It’s interesting to note how little this article says about the substance of the referendum.

   — Al    Dec 10, 04:05 PM    #

2. Does anyone else see this as a ploy to galvanize conservative voters and get them to the polls for the presidential election? In 2004, conservative operatives used the threat of gay marriage to get their base to the polls in key states and ensure a Bush victory. Now it’s affirmative action. What will 2012’s hot button issue be? gun control? the flag? school prayer? illegal immigration, part 2? What a buch of suckers we all are!

   — Brian    Dec 10, 05:53 PM    #

3. It is about time to discontinue affirmative action in Oklahoma and other states. It is discriminatory and give blank check to unqualified persons.

   — Kan Chandras    Dec 10, 06:09 PM    #

4. Brian,

   If you followed the history of the civil rights initiatives you’d know that there was no such ploy. Just last year in Michigan both the major Republican candidates and the Democrats opposed the initiative. And in 2004, when the Michigan version of this initiative was originally attempted (before court challenges), the Executive Director of the Michigan Republican party had this to say: “Our hope is that the opposition prevents it from getting on the ballot.”

   I’ll note that the Michigan Initiative passed by 16 points … in the state of Michigan, you don’t win by that large of a margin without the support of voters who vote for Democrats.

   Bottom line, this is about the issues of fairness and equality, plain and simple.

   — Jennifer Gratz    Dec 10, 07:12 PM    #

5. Brian,

   Ms. Gratz is correct. If the leaders won’t lead, the people will. Ms. Gratz, this transplanted jayhawk “of color” will work hard to pass the initiative in Arizona. I commend you for keeping up the fight.

   — the jayhawk    Dec 10, 11:17 PM    #

6. One wonders if those who so ardently favor ending affirmative action in Oklahoma because it is “discriminatory and gives a blank check to unqualified persons” would also argue for ending affirmative action to Oklahoma institutions for legacy admits — who also receive the plus factor of affirmative action in college admissions processes. Bringing up the issue of ones qualifications also begs the question of what makes a “qualified” candidate for admissions; which to many who have worked in higher education for years is recognized to include the degree to which candidates have persevered through obstacles in life, such as racism, and still performed well academically.

   — Dr. John Foubert    Dec 11, 08:16 AM    #

7. In 1971, the US Supreme Court in Griggs vs. Duke Power unanimously declared adverse impact discrimination as actionable under Title VII. In this job qualifications decision, the Court said that the position and condition of the applicant for a job should be taken into consideration otherwise opportunities become “teases”—much like the offer of milk from the fax to the stork in the fable. It is interesting that the implications of Griggs never are raised in the Affirmative Action “discussion.” The debate as it is presently constructed is, of course, not constructed to enlighten!

   — lowell dunlap    Dec 11, 10:28 AM    #

8. We all know Jennifer’s history and agenda so I hope we will take her comments with a grain of salt. “Civil Rights Initiative” what a crock! As an Oklahoman, I hope this does not pass. This is not Michigan and our population simply is not diverse enough for affirmative action to make any bit difference so let’s keep it, it harms no one in this state.

   — Frankie    Dec 11, 10:35 AM    #

9. Al is right about the lack of information on the proposal itself. Reportedly, the complete text is “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.”

   Articles and blog entries all seem wildly biased one way or the other, or give little information at all. An entry at http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Oklahoma_Civil_Rights_Initiative_(2008) is instructive (and also clearly biased in favor of the initiative). For balance, see http://www.civilrights.org/press_room/buzz_clips/views-conflict-on-affirmative.html. Other biased items focus on who is behind the proposal, or attempts to stop the proposal.

   And to Dr. Foubert: I bet most of the supporters of this thing probably would oppose legacy admissions. Most likely, the vast majority of the petition-signers have never set foot inside a postsecondary school of any kind. As for the ones who spearheaded the initiative, who knows.

   — swish    Dec 11, 10:49 AM    #

10. But any institution that is not the State certainly can and will continue in the majority to discriminate against per secula seculorum.

    — J Edwards    Dec 11, 11:30 AM    #

11. A system that gives preferential treatment to someone simply because their skin is a particular color is racist at its core, and is wrong. On the other hand, a system that gives a nod to someone who has proven that they can overcome life’s obstacles makes sense. We sometimes call the former, “affirmative action.” We call the latter common sense.

    — FB    Dec 11, 11:51 AM    #

12. In today’s search for fallacies, response #8 wins the blue ribbon. We start with an ad hominem (circumstantial- motive) and move on to prejudicial language ( crock ). Then we enjoy an appeal to pity (I’m from Oklahoma) and conclude with a perfect example of ignoratio elenchi. Nice job Frankie.

    — Paul A. - Dallas, Texas    Dec 11, 12:37 PM    #

13. This has nothing to do with affirmative action. It is the revival of racism. The more things change the more they remain the same; or as Solomon pointed out in Ecclesiastes, “there is nothing new under the sun”. People who have enjoyed a privileged position in society refuse to share that privilege with others, most specifically their women. It is tempting to think that affirmative action benefits only black people. Isn’t it ironic that the people who oppose affirmative action are so-called conservative “Christians” who ostensibly are the righteous ones? These people are hypocrites. And we wonder why Islam and other religions are gaining strength in America. A nation so blessed and yet refusing to acknowledge that all blessings come from God and should be shared by all. The Bible says that the earth and its fullness thereof belong to the Lord. Most Americans live a paradoxical life, perhaps due to insane rhetoric from the Republican Party.

    — Solomon    Dec 11, 12:42 PM    #

14. Dear Miss Solomon, Here is what another person was saying around the same time.
    “For of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a law of their nature wherever they can rule they will. (Thucydides “The Melian Debate”) Also see: “...while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Please try to confront the bitterness you have over your glaring inadequacies, those shortcomings that have been exposed, on your own time, maybe in a private place. Thank you. Paul

    — Paul A.- Dallas    Dec 11, 03:06 PM    #

15. Defacto apartheid existed in this country up until roughly 1965. So after about 40 years it’s amazing that people are so willing to get rid of a program designed to correct the situation.

    — Cliff    Dec 11, 03:42 PM    #

16. My great-grandparents came to Oklahoma to seek a better life. But today I am ashamed to be from Oklahoma. What next from this forsaken place? No doubt all the so-called “Christians” behind this election will turn out in droves to vote for this proposition, should it survive challenge, which I fervently hope will not be the case.

    — Terry    Dec 11, 08:05 PM    #

17. Affirmative action is racist. I feel it harms more people than it helps. Not to mention all the people who abused the system. I for one am ready to fight to the death to stop it if need be. It does nothing but divide us more and more.

    — Warren W. Wagner    Dec 13, 01:02 AM    #

18. “fight to the death”?? The rhetoric meter is going through the roof. And you say you are not trying to divide us?

    In fact, many blacks did pay with their lives for their skin color in our own country but that is hardly the position white men find themselves in today. Let’s not exaggerate.

    — J Edwards    Dec 13, 01:20 PM    #

19. Anyone who believes Ms. Gratz’s assertion that this is about fairness and equality needs to read the marvelous new book “Color and Money: How Rich White Kids are Winning the War over College Affirmative Action,” by Peter Schmidt. (Yes, the same Peter Schmidt who is a Chronicle editor and author of this blog post; I hope nobody finds anything ominous in that and now attempts to deconstruct his comments to find some anti-anti-affirmative action in this factual post.) With hard data, he completely dismantles any notion that this is about fairness and equality.

    Ms. Gratz is correct that both political parties and almost all major candidates for office in Michigan opposed the Michigan “Civil Rights” Initiative when it appeared on the ballot in 2006, but I do not see how that can be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of the measure. And she did not mention that polls showed that opinion seemed close to evenly split on the measure before it passed by 16 points, the same sort of polling results and final margin the Connerly/Gratz measure tends to get anywhere it appears. Whatever spin others might put on it, realistically that is because many people are ashamed to admit, even to pollsters, that they are going to vote for it.

    — Bob M.    Dec 14, 06:16 AM    #

20. Bob M, my view of Peter Schmidt’s book is that its conclusions, or data, do not back your assertion that “he” “completely dismantles any notion” about these initiatives.

    First, his book is mostly pre-2004 analysis, dealing with the lawsuit history – not the CRI history. There’s issue overlap – but the suits also presented technical legal issues quite irrelevant to the genuine policy debate (like the cover notion of “diversity”). His data dismantles much of the shoddy “science” done “diversity”, along with showing universities have a bias towards wealth, and hence against the poor of all stripes, which most on “our side” (disclosure, I worked for Gratz and Connerly in Michigan) agree is true. Indeed, many on our side accept that the best alternative is some form of socio-economically structured program (I hesitate to say just preferences, because focus on repairing urban K-12 failures is a much deeper task than economic preference).

    At best, you could interpret Schmidt’s book a middle-ground that attacks myths on both sides of the aisle – at worst, for your side, Schmidt’s book is a loud statement against university financial practices and supports socio-economic alternatives. The CRI’s are not incompatible with fixing social or economic problems – they merely prevent a failed shortcut that has 40 years been correlated with worsening K-12 disparity.

    If you keep doing the same thing, you’ll get the same results. If preferences were so brilliant a solution – can you point to a state that uses them that has seen lessening urban-regionalized educational failure?

    The CRI’s force universities to do something different to solve the problem – to go to the non-racial sources of the problem.

    Chetly Zarko
    www.EqualityTalk.com

    — Chetly Zarko    Dec 14, 09:23 AM    #

21. What is happening in and to America? Why so much political traction for: anti-affirmative action,anti-immigration,anti-enironmental enhancement,pro-guns,pro-war,pro-personal greed?

    Why is it that those who seek to lead America are reluctant to articulate a progressive vision for America in the 21st Century and its appropriate role as the world’s sole super-power?

    Upon what values do we want to shape national policy? What kind of people do we want to be?

    — John W. Moore    Dec 15, 06:33 AM    #

Previous: At Muhlenberg College, Jewish Students Outnumber Lutherans
Next: Gee Pressed for Statement in Mine-Accident Lawsuit