Excellent point. Deniying the existence of data is alost always a bad thing, that is a clear example of how thelack of this particular data can be harmful even in matters unrelated to racial tug-o-war.
How could AA and racial quotas exist without racial profiling. That is what prop. 54 is meant to eliminate.
If that is the goal the smart thing to try to do is eliminate AA, not make the data unavailable.
AA wouldn;t exist if all humans were dead.
AA wouldn't exist if there were a return to slavery and subjugation....
In short, there are a lot of things that can preclude AA. Doesn't mean they make sense.
Craven
What is simpler than making the tracking data nonexistant?
Eliminating AA. Anyway, who said simpler is better?
If the classifications are already optional, I don't think the data received is accurate.
Rather than asking job applicants and and people in other situations their race and sex--which they shouldn't be asked IMO--can't important issues be tracked in some other way?
Less than perfect data is hardly a reason to make the collection of the data illegal.
This isn;t a law for job applications. This is a law that seeks to eliminate the collection of any data that is sorted by race.
Doctors are against this for the reasons that InfraBlue mentioned. In their attempt to attack AA the proponents of prop 54 want to try to ensure that they never have to worry about racial inequality again, not by solving the problem but by making the data illegal. It's one of the most transparent ploys I can imagine.
This is the first I've heard of this. Does anyone know off-hand who is behind Prop 54?
The funding comes from a NPO that does not identify the donors.
Craven
Racial inequality is a two edged sword and cuts both ways. I would assume that is what Prop 54 is meant to eliminate. People are to be judged as individuals not as racial statistics.
Statistics don't judge, people do. Racial discrimination is already illegal. Making knowledge illegal is a dangerous thing.
Sofia
In 1996, Mr. Connerly - a black man and outspoken regent of the University of California - was the prime mover behind Prop. 209, which banned several kinds of affirmative action. After the victory, says "Yes on 54" spokeswoman Diane Schachterle, "Connerly realized that if the state could no longer take race into account in public contracting, education, and employment, then there was no reason to continue classifying people."
He created the "Racial Privacy Initiative."
Craven
Quote:Statistics don't judge, people do. Racial discrimination is already illegal. Making knowledge illegal is a dangerous thing.
Why collect it if it will not be used? The answer is it will be used as long as it is available.
Yes it will be used. It will be used to help determine that some races in California do not have equal funding of their schools.
That some races have a greater predisposition to certain diseases. Etc etc.
Of course it will be used! As it should be.
Your question is loaded. It's trying to state as a given that the information has only racism as it's utility when this is certainly not the case.
Craven
IMO that is and always has been it's prime objective.
We'll have to disagree on that. Data about racial inequality was key to eliminatin much of the racial inequality.
I can only imagine:
"Certain persons of unattributted racial makeup are not allowed to drink from this water fountain. And everyone else is prohibited from collecting the data about which type of person this action targets."
Banning knowledge is a dangerous thing. I can only hope this one doesn't sneak past us.
I understand Ricard Tizon's predicament.
I have always wondered how much "black" is "black". What is the "blood percentage" that determines race?
Then there's the language-last name element, in considering Hispanics (of all races).
What makes a Hispanic? Knowledge of Spanish language and hispanic culture as heritage?
Is New Mexico's governor Bill Richardson considered Hispanic? IMO, he's more Mexican-Hispanic than many third generation Garcias and Hernandez living in California, who can't speak the language (some think they do) and are totally inmersed in mainstream American culture.
IMO, while race is a big problem in American culture, adressing problems according to race classification puts a shadow on another important way of adressing problems: income and opportunities.
Most Affirmative Action gives an edge to middle class members of oppresed minorities, and gives the impression, but only the impression, that racial-social justice is coming.
If things were adressed according to income, then Affirmative Action would be truly affirmative.
my instinctive reaction was do away with the boxes - all men/women are equal and why should i have to say what i am ...
...but Craven makes some very good points.
as an individual i object - but as a principle maybe they should stay after all.
fbaezer wrote:I have always wondered how much "black" is "black". What is the "blood percentage" that determines race?
This is one of the quirks of using racial data in the US. There is no "test" for who fits into which race. Anyone can claim to be any race they want to and there is no way to prove the claim right or wrong.
In theory you could do a census of a city and find that the population reports itself to be 99% white and then look at school enrollments and find that 99% of the students list themselves as various minorities. That's just one of the hazards of using self-reported stastics for anything.
I haven't seen anything better come along yet though.
There is a report which is put out by Harvard University. That Report lists all of the Harvard graduates who have applied to various Law Schools.
The report lists the individuals, for example, who graduated from Harvard and are applying to NYU law school.
The report lists the individuals in order using the LSAT scores as a guide. The highest LSAT scores at the top. The report also lists the GPA of each applicant; the state the applicant is from; the major of each applicant AND THE RACIAL CLASSIFICATION OF EACH APPLICANT.
The report does not list the name of each applicant.
Anyone who looks at these lists will note that there are Grevious Injustices being done in the name of Racial Classification since it is clear that some of the Caucasians on the list WHO HAVE HIGHER LSAT'S AND HIGHER GPA'S are rejected for admission into some Law Schools while African-Americans whose LSAT scores and GPA's are lower are being ADMITTED.
I defy anyone to show me how those Racial Classifications are not basically unjust and discrimatory.
