July 3, 2008

Petitions Are Filed for Arizona and Nebraska Referenda on Affirmative Action

State organizations affiliated with Ward Connerly’s American Civil Rights Institute said today they had gathered more than enough signatures to get measures limiting affirmative-action preferences on the November ballot in Arizona and Nebraska.

With petitions having been submitted on behalf of a similar ballot measure in Colorado in March, there appears to be a good chance that three states will vote this fall on the proposals, all of which would bar public colleges and other state and local agencies from granting affirmative-action preferences in employment, contracting, and decisions related to education. Mr. Connerly, the institute’s chairman, had hoped to put similar measures on the ballot in Missouri and Oklahoma as well, but his organizations in those states failed to gather enough signatures before deadlines earlier this year.

Mr. Connerly’s Arizona organization, the American Civil Rights Initiative, announced today that it had submitted more than 330,000 petition signatures to state officials, well over 100,000 more than required under state law. His Nebraska organization, the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, announced that it had submitted more than 167,000 signatures, or at least 54,000 more than required.

A group that has opposed Mr. Connerly’s efforts in several states, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, announced on Sunday that it would file a lawsuit — as well as complaints with various state officials — alleging that the petition signatures in Arizona had been gathered fraudulently. The group, known as Bamn, has filed a similar legal challenge to the signatures submitted in Colorado, which state officials certified in March. —Peter Schmidt

Comments

1. Let me get out of the way quickly here, so that zealots who want to keep minority groups down and their own street cred up with insolent assurances that you shouldn’t have to do anything but be to get ahead can SPEAK OUT!, ACT UP!, you know, TALK GOOD!, instead of do good.

   — Trancel Ruckus    Jul 3, 03:59 PM    #

2. With guys like Trancel on their side, I can’t imagine why the pro-preference crowd are losing the public debate so badly.

   — Gerard Harbison, UNL    Jul 3, 04:01 PM    #

3. Great comeback, Gerard – unfortunately, the subtlety will be lost on those who need to hear…

   — J    Jul 3, 04:14 PM    #

4. As a college professor and resident of Arizona, I welcome this initiative and plan to vote for it. MERIT, not skin color. How hard is that to understand? Or maybe o’bama should get preferential treatment in such a racist country? Hey, why doesn’t he campaign on that, too?

   — Rafael de Palma    Jul 3, 04:19 PM    #

5. As Supreme Court opinions have stated, affirmative action is not intended to be a permanent fixture in America. Personally, I look forward to living in a country where people are rewarded on their deeds instead of their pigmentation.

   — EC    Jul 3, 04:34 PM    #

6. Trancel,

   A man named the Rev Martin Luther King, Jr. would condemn your attitude and position (but not you). I think he said something to the effect that people should be judged by their character [and abilities] and not by the color of their skin. If that is “keeping minority groups down,” then why didn’t you as a good white liberal fight harder to keep his birthday from being a national holiday (or were you afraid ofbeing called a racist bigot).

   — Ole Professer    Jul 3, 04:40 PM    #

7. Granted “Merit” should be the basis void of race, creed, color, or gender —- howsoever, “Merit” void “Equal Opportunity,” in my opine is inherently unfair.

   Children do not choose where they are born —- and, failure of society to provide “Equal Opportunity,” in societal terms does not bode well —- Alternately if we take the position that the place of birth is the “Major Determinant” of “Opportunities,” then we are ipso facto taking the position that a “Caste System,” is “Morally” right.

   Ergo Let us consider the fundamental fact i.e., is “Equal Opportunity,” since early childhood being provided —- clearly the answer is a resounding “No.” For, our public school systems are so varied in terms of the quality of education.

   A very significant factor responsible for the public school systems having such a diverse quality of education is “Money.” —- The poorer communities (irrespective of race), have lower property values and as such less revenue available in terms of school taxes. Interestingly when Massachusetts enacted Prop 2½ in the 1980s, to limit property taxes, the residents of several affluent towns voted to override Prop 2½ in order to collect more taxes in their own towns to ensure better schools.

   To provide “Equal Opportunity,” —- the collection of property taxes for the schools in my opine should be on a state-wide bases (vs. city/town basis), we should restrict all financial distribution/allocation of funds/monies by towns/cities —- and allocate the same to all schools within the state fairly —- based on the number of pupils and size. —- Thus enabling a certain normalization of resources in education standards and opportunities between the haves and the have-nots.

   Apropos, the failure to address and provide “Equal Opportunity,” in education during the formative years (from kindergarten to grade level 12) —- and then “Demand” that “Equal Treatment,” is “Warranted,” simply reeks of hypocrisy. I personally fail to understand how the same can be even remotely considered as being “Fair Practice.”

   — zahid    Jul 3, 06:46 PM    #

8. About “money” and “minority”: two “minority” groups, American-born and speaking – have demanded affirmative action. Not women, Mormons, Jews, Koreans, Chinese, Irish, Japanese, ….. as they immigrated, with suitcases, no money and no English, to become at least middle class within two generations.
   Now, immigrant Hispanics, Middle Europeans, Vietnamese, Cambodians…. are busting their butts so their kids can go to college. The two “minority” groups that have been here the longest have been surpassed by every later immigrant group – and the Amerinds are getting Casinos.

   — richard    Jul 3, 07:20 PM    #

9. It’s a shame Rafael that you seem to equate receving Affirmative Action benefits in the academic arena with skin color as well. White women have greatly benefitted from Affirmative Action. Also merit in academics is a joke. What about legacy scholarships? It ‘s who you know and for years whites have known more people and have had more doors open for them. Here is a final news flash: there are scores of people of color in academe who did not and don’t need Affirmative Action to succeed. As a professor like you and a woman of color, I didn’t need it. Hispanics in the Southern states are getting a lot of help in getting Affirmative action resource help. Ever heard of HOLA? It’s big here in Georgia? And to Richard, plenty of Black parents are busting their butts to get their kids in school so they won’t be seen as Affirmative Action handout receivers. Stop stereotyping people of color please.

   — Liz C    Jul 3, 09:03 PM    #

10. zahid- Couldnt agree with you more- and you stated your point very elegantly.

    — alex kuprianov    Jul 4, 09:45 AM    #

11. What is the likelihood on an academic job announcement ever ending with: White males particularly encouraged to apply?”

    — jruiz    Jul 4, 12:31 PM    #

12. The end of race-based Affimative Action does not necessarily mean a decline in higher education opportunities for under-represented groups. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor has instituted a social class-based affirmative action – giving admissions and financial aid preference to qualified students (both white and non-white) who are first in their families to attend college. This now allows middle and upper middle class students – both non-white and white – to compete directly for admission. These more economically privileged students should have the family and educational resources to gain admission to the more selective schools – based on merit.

    We now have higher educational policies that begin to address the purposeful, long-standing underfunding of K-12, public education in our least advantaged areas – regardless of race. I suspect that if ballot measures pass in Arizona and Nebraska – as they have in California, Washington, and Michigan – that a similar social class-based Affirmative Action will probably be instituted in an effort to maintain some type of diversity at the most selective public colleges. It’s good to see social class inequality openly addressed in policy arenas. Afterall, Martin Luther King was also concerned with economic inequality – regardless of race or gender.

    — Dwight    Jul 4, 02:48 PM    #

13. I have followed the referendum process closely in Arizona. Supporters of affiirmative action have fought tooth and nail to disqualify petitioners and keep the initiative off the ballot. I am on vacation in my native Kansas and was happy to learn that we Arizonans collected a 100K cushion of signees.

    My elation is tempered by some of the posts above. The assumption—implicit in some posts but explicit in others—that my granddaughter and others of her generation cannot succeed without affirmative action recalls Justice O’Connors’ opinion in Gruder v. Bollinger. But then I recall Justice Thomas’ lucid dissent, and Connerly’s book (CREATING EQUAL). smile and think: Perhaps, Dr. King’s dream will come true for my granddaughter. Maybe she will be judged by the content of her character—not the color of her skin.

    — The Jayhawk    Jul 4, 10:39 PM    #

14. It might be time for the transition. As a nation, we need to be more concerned about performance than being a “protected class.”

    — Sally    Jul 5, 09:44 AM    #

15. That tired old money, or “Money,” and “Equal Opportunity” argument of zahid and others is really worn out and discredited. Time, once again, to review a little history. Get out the books, articles and records reviewing the experience of the Kansas City school district during the 10 years it was under federal court supervision.
    Absolutely unlimited funds, billions of dollars thrown at any and every idea anybody could come up with to improve minority student performance, new buildings, equipment, programs, afrocentric curriculum, etc. without end, all under black administrative and faculty control.
    Did it do any good or change anything? Not a wit.
    The Kansas City experience too long ago(15-20 years) for you? I highly recommend you look at the current Washington D.C. schools performance. No lack of money there either, not that it matters.

    — jon    Jul 5, 01:09 PM    #

16. When students who are underqualified (low grades, poor SATs) get accepted into university due to any sort of affirmative action (whether legacy, race, or class), they are often in no position to succeed. The result is poor retention rates. Is admitting underqualified students and then failing them a good idea? Should universities get in the business of extensive remediation? Or dumb down courses and inflate grades so everyone can pass?

    A better option might be more extensive subsidy of the community college system to allow students to do remedial work to qualify them for university level work.

    — anonymous    Jul 5, 02:31 PM    #

17. Correct, colleges and universities should not admitt underqualified students. It’s discouraging for everyone – students and faculty alike – to see people fail. But for too long selective schools didn’t do enough (if any) recruiting in low income areas (both white and non-white). They had plenty of qualified, middle class students from all racial groups applying.

    Now with the banning of race/gender based Affirmative Action selective colleges are actually finding and recruiting qualified working and lower class students.

    We should challenge the myth that most or all low income students are underqualified and in need of remediation.

    — Dwight    Jul 5, 03:20 PM    #

18. The first commenter (Trancel) says it all….“Let me get out of the way quickly here, so that zealots who want to keep minority groups down”

    Minority groups keep themselves down.

    Prediction: President Obama will properly abolish Affirmative action AND the EEOC on inauguration day. With a Black President, there is no longer any justification for any of these absurd programs.

    — mike arrington    Jul 5, 04:09 PM    #

19. For Jon (#16):

    My point was not rooted in race or creed —- it was about “Opportunities Provided,” pure and simple, —- and the same is an “Issue,” irrespective of race. For, in general even when considering kids from institutions that are predominantly white, there is a disparity —- driven in large part by how the schools are funded. I am positive that if you compared the “predominantly white schools” in the suburbs, with each other, you would find the same in general.

    Personalizing the aforementioned: My two kids attended a public school, where there was only one black kid in my daughter’s class, and none in my sons, the whole school had only 4 or 5 black kids. When we moved they also attended a public school where there were no blacks in either of my kids classes, (hereto the whole school had only 4 or 5 black kids). —- However, the difference in terms of “Opportunities Provided,” between both these schools was tremendous, and it had a lot to do with local property taxes. As can be expected the results of these two schools varied dramatically —- from one school eventually around 5% of the kids would gain acceptance into the elite colleges, whilst from the other —- roughly 35% of the kids would easily gain acceptance into the elite colleges.

    Simply put (in general): “The more affluent the town —- the better the schools.” And, it matters not whether the property values are driven by the quality of schools or vice versa, the fact remains that “town affluence” and “school quality” are related.

    Digressing and taking this divide further —- let me state that I am hard pressed to argue that those receiving their K-12 education in excellent Public Schools are at par with those receiving their K-12 education in elite Private Schools, and a cursory glance at the results bears out the same. —- For the “admits” to elite colleges in percentage terms is the highest from private schools, especially the elite ones.

    Just consider the # of HS students in Private vs. Public Schools and reconcile the same in terms of acceptance to elite colleges.—- A few examples should suffice (Princeton Review 351 Best Colleges 2004):
    Amherst 60% From Public HS
    Brown 60% From Public HS
    Harvard* 65% From Public HS
    MIT 68% From Public HS
    Mount Holyoke 66% From Public HS
    Williams 54% From Public HS

    The fact that private HS have such outstanding placement rates is also related to “Money” —- the $25,000 or so plus tuition being charged by elite private HS (Philips, Harvard-Westlake, Groton, etc.), not to mention their large endowments. —- enables “Opportunities,” that exceed those afforded by most affluent Public Schools.

    Apropos, in general the bulk majority of the students admitted to the elite colleges, —- come from a small minority of Public Schools, which in most cases are the ones in the most affluent of towns.

    RE: Your reference to the Kansas City Schools, With all due respect, I fail to see the appropriate connections —- for the issue therein was rooted in the desegregation case, —- primarily involving racial balancing, etc., —- and as such the solutions attempted therein weren’t directly related to addressing the fundamentals pertinent to “Equal Opportunities,” and “Fairness.” —- which are rooted primarily “Not in Race,” but in a “Prevailing Class Structure”.

    Additionally, a small clarification (not germane to the issue on hand) is in order —- the billions you mention is in actuality merely millions spread over a long duration —- According to the NY Times (April 19th 1990: Reporting By William Robbins):

    “The legal battle began in 1977 …. Judge Clark in 1987 issued an order increasing the school district’s property taxes … Since Judge Clarks original order, $36 million in tax increases have been paid and held in escrow … About $10 million of the protested taxes were paid in 1987 …
    Questions about the taxes paid in protest since 1987, a total of $26 million, were settled by the Supreme Court today when it said they were properly imposed and collected.”

    Consider the sums involved in relation to the years, and number of pupils involved and relate them to those of a school in an affluent suburb —- and, make adjustments for legal costs, and busing costs etc. which have no bearing whatsoever on the quality of education inputs.

    Summarily, the Kansas City Schools issue had nothing to do with “How Schools are Funded” —- which was my primary contention —- The Nub Of The Issue: It is the “Manner” in which we “Fund” our schools, a ‘Manner” which “Virtually Ensures” an “Uneven Playing Field,” and is “Inherently Unfair.”

    And, my contention was that no town/city should be allowed to collect any taxes (property or otherwise for the schools per se.), or be allowed to distribute any revenue to local schools —- This has “Nothing” to do with “Race”, —- it “Applies to all Towns/Cities Statewide.” Notwithstanding racial make-up, location, affluence or current performance (good or bad).

    My main contention was that “Unequal Opportunities,” are guaranteed by the current “Taxation and Funding System.” —- And, as such it “Morally Obligates” us to adapt a “Fairer System.”

    Clearly, the aforementioned is not a oftentimes repeated position as you imply, —- and the “Methodology,” of Collection/Allocation of “Money,” per se, which I proposed —- Contrary to your statement has “Never Ever Been Tried” in our entire country (it does exist in some foreign countries).

    Reiterating My Earlier Statement (For its rationale see Comment # ):

    Apropos, the failure to address and provide “Equal Opportunity,” in education during the formative years (from kindergarten to grade level 12) —- and then “Demand” that “Equal Treatment,” is “Warranted,” simply reeks of hypocrisy. I personally fail to understand how the same can be even remotely considered as being “Fair Practice.”

    — zahid    Jul 5, 11:45 PM    #

20. To Anonymous (#17)

    You are absolutely right regarding your stance that the acceptance at the university levels should be “Merit Based,” without exception. Unfortunately, the “Exception,” vs. “No Exception” debate will in practice never apply to the legacies, major donors, etc. —- it will remain focused on the “Have-Nots.”

    And, whilst the ‘Solutions Option” presented by you —- i.e., remedial work at community college levels vide subsidization; definitely has merits, —- however, in my opine, it should only be used as a stop-gap interim solution, for it fails to address the crux of the problem per se.

    Isn’t avoidance of remedial work/subsidization a better option? And as such shouldn’t the primary efforts be directed at K-12 levels? Simply put if we don’t address the K-12 educational problems, the remedial solutions will be required ad infinitum period.

    In short, the failure to address the foundation —- and to concentrate instead on structural improvements —- is clearly geared towards limited outcomes. We should be seeking some sort of ‘Parity” in the quality of K-12 education (this does not imply reduction of standards) —- “Parity” herein, is in terms of “Education Quality,” which clearly is a function of “Resources Inputs.”

    For when the process of an individual’s initial education is dependent upon local property tax revenues, which in turn are a function of local property values, then the plans have been finalized —- ergo, the foundational parameters have been defined —- seeking structural improvements 12 years later not only has its obvious limitations, —- but also leads to “Societal Fracture” (which is detrimental to our well-beings).

    For an expanded view on the same, and “Fairness” per se —- See my earlier comment (#7).

    — zahid    Jul 6, 12:22 AM    #

21. To Dwight (#18)

    Legacies, the under-qualified relative to their peers rarely if ever fail. My daughter who attended a sister college oftentimes remarked, how some Prof. struggled to devise ways to keep legacies out of their classes —- and, she and her cousins thought that some courses being offered (at Ivies, Little Ivies, and Sister Colleges), were specially designed to ensure that the “Special Admit” succeeded.

    — zahid    Jul 6, 12:42 AM    #

22. #10 — Jesse Helms has finally left the scene, so it’s good to know there are still people like “dawg” around to keep the flames of bigotry burning bright.

    — kat    Jul 7, 01:27 AM    #

Previous: Oklahoma's Matching-Gift Backlog Booms Despite Moratorium
Next: U. of Evansville President Arrested on Drunken-Driving Charges