In March 2004, California voters will have another chance to
voice their disgust at the hypocrisy of our government’s
public policies on race.
Our government proudly pays lip service to the ideal that
“all men are created equal,” yet neatly sorts us by
race every chance it gets. Half of the questions on the 2000 census
dealt purely with questions on race and ethnicity.
And I doubt you would not be asked to choose from
“White,” “African American,” “Asian
American,” “Hispanic,” or “Other” at
your neighborhood Department of Motor Vehicles ““ or even on
your UCLA application.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone proposed legislation
to make it illegal to classify people by race? Well, thanks to the
Republican Party, the Racial Privacy Initiative is about to rock
your world. Who knew politics could be so “not
boring?”
In 1996, California passed the infamous, affirmative
action-squashing Proposition 209, which mandated that the state
could not discriminate or grant preferential treatment on the basis
of race or sex. The proposed RPI would not allow classification by
race, except for medical research, law enforcement, or if it
“serves a compelling state interest.” The initiative
gives Californians another chance to show the rest of the nation
how racial policy can be done right.
Look around you. How many of us fit neatly into those little
boxes anyway?
The census claims that only a couple percent of the population
is mixed. That’s strange, considering that the actual
proportion is probably closer to 50 percent. People are being
forced into singular categories that are drawn up to make the lives
of statisticians easier.
Furthermore, in 2002, 7.3 percent of University of California
applicants refused to state their ethnicity. Maybe there
wasn’t a box that fit them exactly. Maybe they didn’t
want the UC Regents to know.
Maybe they just didn’t want to be an
“Other.”
Whatever the case, the university isn’t even getting a
clear picture. The flawed system is using flawed data to state a
flawed conclusion of the racial situation.
Besides these practical concerns, there is also an obvious
ideological case for the RPI. The United States is not supposed to
have a caste system. How can we expect people to see each other as
equals when our public institutions insist that there are valid
reasons for racial differentiation? “American” should
mean “American,” not “African American” or
“Asian American.”
But of course there are critics of RPI. The most common argument
against RPI is that racial data is essential to understanding just
how much discrimination is actually going on. So, in the view of
the RPI’s opposition, the solution to the problem might cloud
our ability to gauge just how bad the problem is.
While likely a noble premise in the context of a race for
equality, taking action should be the first step ““ instead of
unproductive analysis.
Even worse, the most fundamentally damaging assumption held by
opponents to these types of proposals is the idea that minorities
will be outclassed if placed on equal footing.
When Proposition 209 first passed, critics cried out, haughtily
writing off blacks and Hispanics from being able to find decent
jobs on their own merit.
This was not the case, of course. Minorities are able to find
decent jobs on their own merit. The RPI won’t change
this.
This one piece of legislation is the final piece in the puzzle.
What Proposition 209 began, the RPI will emphatically exclaim. Race
will no longer be used as a quantifier. The goal of a colorblind
society ““ or at least public policy ““ could be only six
months away. So next March, make the right choice. If for nothing
else, make that choice in order to never have to check those
“appropriate boxes” ever again.