A panel discussion at the UCLA Law School on the implications of
Proposition 54 attracted about 100 students; the initiative is set
to go on the ballot Oct. 7.
The event, organized by a group of law students, aimed to inform
the student body of the initiative, which if passed would ban the
collection of racial and ethnic data by state institutions,
including universities and employment agencies.
Shaffy Moeel, law student and organizer of the event, said a
representative from the Federalist Society, a campus group that
supports the initiative, was invited to speak at the panel.
Because the society could not find a representative to speak at
the event, Moeel said she tried to balance the largely
anti-Proposition 54 discussion by bringing arguments offered by
supporters of the proposition to the attention of the
panelists.
The panelists expressed their opposition to the initiative and
discussed the impact of Proposition 54 on the state.
“If passed, (Proposition 54) is going to be extremely
damaging to all of us, not just to any particular race,” said
Paule Cruz-Takash of the César E. Chávez Center for
Chicano Studies.
Cruz-Takash rejected the idea that the initiative would create a
colorblind society. The proposition would undermine efforts at
school reforms because there would be no way to check across racial
groups to make sure that educational equity was being achieved, she
said.
She argued that clauses in the initiative that proponents said
would grant exceptions to public health and law enforcement
communities are impractical because of the tedious process an
organization has to go through to be able to collect and use racial
data.
Erica Linnick, staff attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund,
said the initiative would make it impossible to enforce
anti-discrimination and civil rights laws. Hate crimes would be
impossible to detect because the racial data would not be
available, she added.
Peter Kwan, a visiting professor at the UCLA Law School,
attacked the idea of colorblindness that the proposition’s
backers believe will be achieved.
“It’s beyond the capacity of the state to achieve
this reform. What it will achieve is denial,” he said.
The four panelists agreed that the proposition, if passed, would
damage medical research and make efforts to address past racial
inequality irrelevant.
The panelists said they were surprised there were no
presentations by supporters of the initiative, some members of the
audience said.
Graduate student Monica McCann said the discussion would have
been more interesting with views from the opposing side.
Yvonne Ballesteros, a law student, said the panelists discussed
several problems with the initiative that many people aren’t
aware of. She said the panelists’ presentations reinforced
her opposition to the proposition.