Opponents of race-conscious policies frequently proclaim the
virtues of a “colorblind society,” where public policy
and social values are race neutral. But within this camp there
remains disagreement over how to achieve this goal.
In California, the debate presently hinges on the Racial Privacy
Initiative. If approved by voters, the measure would make it
illegal for most state agencies to collect racial data.
The RPI was written by Ward Connerly, University of California
regent and outspoken opponent of race conscious policies,
especially in UC admissions. While many liberals disagree with the
measure, Connerly has also found an opponent in a fellow Republican
and former political ally.
Tom Wood, president of Americans Against Discrimination and
Preferences co-authored Proposition 209, which in 1996 banned the
consideration of race in California.
Connerly led the Proposition 209 campaign, making California the
first state to adopt such a measure.
Wood believes the RPI will make it difficult to enforce
Proposition 209 and other racial discrimination laws. He argues
that racial data could be used as evidence if a state agency
included racial considerations in decisions like hiring or
university admissions.
“(The RPI) will gut 209. It will gut any law,” Wood
said.
In February, Wood unsuccessfully attempted to persuade state
Republicans not to endorse the RPI.
Connerly was not available for comment Monday or Tuesday, but
has been vigorously defending his newest proposal against
Wood’s criticisms.
Diane Schachterle, the campaign coordinator for the RPI, said
the measure would not affect the enforcement of Proposition 209 or
other laws because discrimination cases must be proven on an
individual basis.
“Racial discrimination suits have not been won with
statistics or data,” Schachterle said.
The argument over the RPI is not as simple as a disagreement on
how the state should enforce affirmative action and discrimination
laws. While both Connerly and Wood oppose race-conscious policy and
speak in favor of a colorblind society, they have differing ideas
on what a colorblind society is.
In a letter to Wood dated March 27, Connerly writes that the
campaign for Proposition 209 “was built around the principle
of colorblindness.”
Elsewhere in the letter Connerly objects to a column in the
Sacramento Bee that states that Wood considers the RPI a betrayal
of Proposition 209 and colorblind ideals.
For Connerly and other supporters of the RPI, the elimination of
racial classifications in state agencies is essential to the
creation of a colorblind society.
Once race is removed from public policy, they argue,
Californians’ concern for each others’ racial
backgrounds will diminish.
“RPI is actually geared toward a colorblind government,
which of course would set the tone for society to follow,”
Schachterle said.
Wood agrees with Connerly that Proposition 209 was a step toward
a colorblind society because it prohibited the state from
considering race, but he does not consider it to be strictly
colorblind since it allowed the state to continue collecting racial
information.
“It’s not colorblind in the sense the state … has
to poke out its eyes and not recognize race,” Wood said.
While Connerly believes the RPI is necessary to produce a
colorblind society, Wood said the measure will make it harder to do
so, because he believes it will hamper enforcement of existing
laws.
“I think (the RPI) will make it more difficult to get
there because it makes it harder to fight discrimination,” he
said.
The debate has almost a full year to develop until California
voters will decide if the state can continue to collect racial
data. The measure is scheduled to appear on the March 2004
ballot.