Trying to establish a society where race or ethnicity has no
meaning might seem like a good thing to some Californians. But
Proposition 54, a controversial initiative that proponents say
would do just that, has teachers and police officers around the
state up in arms because of its methods for race neutrality.
One of two initiatives currently qualified for the California
recall ballot, Proposition 54 would prevent the state from
collecting information about a person’s race for public
education, public employment and public contracting. And though
supporters say the initiative would be the first step toward a
“colorblind” society, opponents say it would restrict
access to information that allows the state to fight pressing
issues ranging from illiteracy to crime.
Some people involved with public education say state schools
have already been burdened with Proposition 209, an initiative that
was passed in 1996. Essentially outlawing affirmative action,
Proposition 209 prevents the state from considering a
person’s race when admitting students or hiring employees,
though it does allow the collection of such information to
continue.
Supporters of Proposition 54 argue that the initiative is just
an extension of this predecessor.
“If it’s constitutionally forbidden for the state to
grant preferences in those areas, the next logical question is why
does the state need to collect the data?” said Justin Jones,
a spokesman for the American Civil Rights Coalition, an advocate
organization for Proposition 54.
But education officials contend that there is a vital purpose in
collecting data about students’ race. Such data allows them
to track trends among their students, identify problem areas, and
adjust lesson plans accordingly, they say.
Jose Huizar, president of the Los Angeles School Board, points
to an “achievement gap” between people of different
ethnicities, a gap that could go unidentified in a colorblind
society.
“We know that no matter what indicators you use, African
Americans and Latinos do not perform as well as other students.
We’re working hard to close that gap using test
results,” he said.
Some school districts in North Carolina have already managed to
close this achievement gap using data on students’ race,
Huizar added.
The University of California Board of Regents have also come out
against Proposition 54, despite the fact that the initiative was
authored by Regent Ward Connerly. The majority of the regents
agreed that the UC relies heavily on racial data for programs such
as education outreach and faculty research as well as for figuring
out the availability of financial aid.
Besides preventing public education from collecting racial
information, Proposition 54 would also cripple state-wide programs
that target under-performing groups with extra tutoring or advanced
placement coursework.
However, proponents of Proposition 54 say public education can
still get information about racial groups, just not from the state.
Research by private groups or individuals is still allowed, said
Glynn Custred, co-author of Proposition 209 and one of the
initiative’s supporters.
Under such a provision, a university professor could still track
literacy rates among ethnic populations, so long as the research
was not state-funded.
Huizar, however, dismissed private research as an unnecessary
bureaucratic step to get information currently available through
state tests and surveys.
Another legal loophole in Proposition 54 would exempt all
programs that gather racial data for federal purposes or for
federal funding. Under such an exemption, educational programs such
as President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind,” which
seeks to improve schools nationwide, would still be allowed to
gather data on race from their students.
However, whether schools could then turn around and use federal
racial data for its own purposes is uncertain. Supporters of
Proposition 54 say they cannot. Some opponents, however, say the
matter is unclear and may have to be settled in court should the
initiative pass.
Proposition 54 has also become a major sticking point for state
law enforcement personnel, who are afraid it would hamper their
ability to identify crime trends. A clause in the initiative would
allow police to describe a suspect they are actively pursuing by
race, but they could not compile such information into a
comprehensive database.
This has led law enforcement officials, including Attorney
General Bill Lockyer, to complain that police would no longer be
able to track or prevent crime trends in minority communities or
racial hate crimes.
Jones said such an argument was too technical and missed the
larger point of Proposition 54.
“We believe that the goal of a colorblind society is more
important than holding onto the data to fight against these cases.
Could it make some of these cases harder? Yes, but we think
that’s a fine price to pay for a society where people are
less focused on (race),” he said.
But people involved in education and law enforcement don’t
necessarily dispute what Proposition 54 would do, just the way it
would try to do it.
The problem many people have with the initiative, according to
Cheryl Harris, a law school professor at UCLA, is that it tries to
solve a large issue like race by putting out the eyes of the
state.
“The question is: Do you stop a problem by refusing to see
it?” she asked.