In 1996, Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood stood united in calling
for an end to affirmative action in California, a cause they
championed ““ and passed ““ through their co-written
initiative Proposition 209.
Now, in 2003, Custred and Wood once again find themselves in the
forefront of another race-based initiative, Proposition 54, which
if passed would prevent the state from collecting racial
information for public education or public employment.
This time, however, Custred and Wood stand divided.
Custred is a strong advocate for the symbolic appeal of
Proposition 54, saying the initiative would create a society where
race has no bearing on how a person is viewed or treated.
Wood is a stickler for the technical details, concerned that the
racial data Proposition 54 would do away with is crucial, and he
questions the clarity of the initiative’s language.
Their differing views seem especially unusual given that
Proposition 54 supporters, which includes University of California
Regent Ward Connerly, say the initiative seeks to build on the
foundation laid down by Proposition 209.
The fundamental differences in opinion between Custred and Wood
mirror the opposing sides of the debate on Proposition 54.
Supporters of the initiative say the state will never solve
racial inequalities if it holds onto racial data, and see the
proposition as symbolic of the fight against racism.
Opponents say the state needs racial data to help track crime
rates, solve disparities in education, and conduct effective
medical research.
Custred, an anthropology professor at Cal State Hayward and a
member of the board of directors for Americans Against
Discrimination and Preference, is an outspoken opponent of
accounting for race. He says the best way to guard against racial
discrimination is to do away with the label of race all
together.
“If the state is keeping a record on individuals because
of their race, this is insidious. There’s no reason to do it,
and there’s every reason why it shouldn’t be done
because it perpetuates these race preferences,” he said.
Wood, on the other hand, argues the state needs to collect
racial data to protect against affirmative action practices. He
also feels the initiative’s language is too dense and murky
to be effective.
Proposition 54’s language in particular has been a
lightning rod for complaints. For example, the initiative grants an
exemption to all “medical research subjects and
patients,” a clause its supporters say exempts the entire
medical community.
However, medical and health care researchers believe the term
“medical research subjects and patients” is too vague
and that the initiative in fact exempts only a small portion of the
medical community.
To Wood, the writers of the initiative are straddling the fence
in their attempt to reduce racial data. Though the initiative does
prevent the collection of some data, a series of exemption clauses
could allow the state to still gather a large amount, he said.
“I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that
(the initiative’s supporters) want to have it both
ways,” he said.
Custred respectfully disagrees with his colleague, saying the
language of the initiative is clear. However, he added that both
himself and Wood are still united against racial preferences.
Wood wants to hold onto racial data to file civil lawsuits
against people who violate Proposition 209, but he is missing the
ideological importance of Proposition 54, Custred said.
“Tom is looking at the instrumental part and saying that
this is going to hinder the enforcement of Proposition 209,”
he said. “He’s ignoring the symbolic point.”