Whatever your personal feelings about Ward Connerly, chairman of
the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign and a UC Regent, or
affirmative action may be, it is imperative that you understand the
consequences of the Racial Privacy Initiative because it simply
goes too far.
The RPI, if passed, will phase out some racial classifications
made by the state government. Specifically it will prohibit
classifying “any individual by race, ethnicity, color or
national origin in the operation of public education, public
contracting or public employment.” But medical research, law
enforcement, and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing are
exempted from the RPI and can continue to specify individuals by
race “lawfully.”
On the surface, the wording of the measure seems neutral, but
the potential outcomes could be devastating, particularly in terms
of the outreach efforts by the university and many dedicated
student groups who rely on this information to gauge their
progress.
For example, as a UC Outreach Counselor, I, along with many
others, work primarily with underrepresented students from various
Los Angeles high schools. The university spends thousands of
dollars each year to fund programs like this, which work to boost
minority applications to the UC system. The university is already
prohibited from tracking the academic development of these students
by racial classifications. If the RPI is passed it will make it
even harder to evaluate how outreach programs are doing.
Ward Connerly is loved by some and vilified by others for
helping to introduce Proposition 209, the equally controversial
ballot initiative that banned preferential treatment on the basis
of race in the hiring and admission of individuals in local and
state governments and school. In short, Prop. 209 eliminated
affirmative action programs in California.
Connerly has said that he started the RPI because he believes
that categorizing people on the basis of race or ethnicity is
offensive.
There is a long list of individuals and organizations opposed to
the RPI. State administrators and legislators, as well as countless
university officials and student groups, have spoken out against
the measure. Chancellor Carnesale and other UC chancellors have
publicly opposed the RPI because it will make it harder to improve
student and faculty diversity, which is already lacking. UCSA, the
official lobbying arm of UC students, is also opposed to the RPI
because it views the measure as an information ban rather than a
privacy increase.
In an era where inequality is still a fact of life, we cannot
eliminate all means of gauging a situation. Ward Connerly may
support this measure because he truly believes that eliminating
racial data collection will make society more colorblind, but the
RPI is naive because it does not address the problems of
discrimination and inequality. Instead it takes away the data that
is necessary to analyze trends and progress in hiring and
university admission policies.
This measure will not make our problems go away. Instead, if the
RPI passes it will only substitute ignorance for helpful
information in the name of social equality.