The architect of a ban on affirmative action programs in other states said Thursday night adopting one here won't necessarily kill existing programs to help women and minorities -- if they're opened to everyone else.
Ward Connerly said he has no problems with helping the disadvantaged. But he said those run by the government which are targeted by race, ethnicity, gender or national origin are inherently wrong and should be banned.
That is precisely what Proposition 107 would do if approved. It would make it illegal to grant preferential treatment based on any of those factors in public employment, education or contracting.
House Minority Leader David Lujan, who debated Connerly, said the state does not give special privileges to anyone. For example, Lujan said he got into law school at Arizona State University based on his ability, without any artificial boost.
But Lujan said he did benefit from a program there aimed at Hispanic students which paired him with a Hispanic attorney. That would become illegal if Proposition 107 passes.
Also gone, Lujan said, would be a special mother-daughter program aimed at Hispanic teens to try to introduce them to the possibility of going to college, taking them to campuses. He said these are necessary because Hispanic girls have historically not thought about higher education and, as a result, are underrepresented at state universities.
Nothing in that program, Lujan said, gives them preferential treatment in getting admitted. "But they also need to be pointed in the right direction in order to be able to succeed because many times they just don't come from backgrounds where they are exposed to college and those types of opportunities,'' he said.
Connerly said there's nothing wrong with such a program -- as long as it's open to everyone.
"There are a lot of white kids whose parents have never been to college,'' he said. "You don't have to limit it to Hispanics to be an effective program.''
And Connerly said the best way to understand why the way the program works now is offensive is to turn it around.
"What do you think the response would be if we said this is a program for white mothers and daughters?'' he asked.
He said the same theme applies for programs based on gender. Connerly said there is no reason they can't be open to men as well.
"I think that there are a lot of taxpayers who want to help their daughters but don't want to do so at the risk of hurting their sons,'' he said.
Lujan, however, said opening up all programs to all people won't work. As an example he cited the Summer Bridges program which helps Native American students adjust to life off the reservation.
"Is it kind of going to defeat the purpose if you have a program specifically aimed toward Native American students and helping them adjust ... if we open it up to everybody?'' he asked.
"It makes no sense,'' Lujan continued. "There's no problem with that program. Who's it harming?''
What is it harming, Connerly said, is the idea that government should not be picking winners and losers, at least not based on things like race or gender. He said government can help without relying on these factors.
"Look at income,'' he said.
"A lot of people here, of all colors, of all backgrounds, have low income,'' Connerly continued. "And that's who we should be helping.''
Lujan said the California version of this measure, which Connerly pushed through in 1996, has had a negative effect on minorities. He said fewer are entering public universities.
Connerly said that may be true. But he said the graduation rate of those who do get in is much higher.
Lujan also took specific shots at Connerly, who is a California resident, and the fact that the money to fund the pro-107 campaign is coming from out of state. He said that amounts to people from elsewhere trying to alter the Arizona Constitution.
Connerly pointed out, though, that the measure was referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature, albeit with only Republicans in support. That, he said, makes it an Arizona issue.
While there are no special programs at the state level, judges have upheld efforts designed to help groups that have been underrepresented. Of greater concern to some is that courts also have allowed certain bid preferences if the government can show minorities or women are not getting a share of contracts.
That exception is at the heart of a provision of the Tucson City Code, which provides eligible firms of minorities that have not received their fair share of contracts with an "adjustment,'' allowing them to bid up to 7 percent more on product or service contracts and still win. And there are procedures to give bonus points to certain firms bidding on professional services.
Accuracy posted at 9:32 am on Fri, Oct 15, 2010.
".........Proposition 107 which would ban affirmative action and other programs which grant any preferential treatment on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin or sex."
---------------------------------------
The proposed Arizona Civil Rights Amendment, Proposition 107 (2010) would ban affirmative action programs in the state that are administered by statewide or local units of government, including state agencies, cities, counties and school districts.
Contractors bidding on a project will win, or lose, based on the criteria for the project, not skin color, sex, or ethnicity.
People applying for a job will get it if they have the right qualifications and skills - not simply because hiring them fills a quota.
Students applying for college will be accepted (or not) based on merit, not skin color, sex or ethnicity.
The proposed Arizona amendment prohibits preferential treatment or discrimination in state governmental institutions.
Rich posted at 11:30 am on Fri, Oct 15, 2010.
What we have to ask ourselves is whether the programs are worthwhile and worthy of tax dollars we don't have. Basically the programs exist to regiment society and make everyone the same. Sort of denying our individuality, personal freedom and uniqueness. Admittedly this is the object of all oppressive governments, regimented people are easier to control. However, should it be part of a free society? Affirmative Action is the epitome of two wrongs supposedly making a right.....oops.
Carolyn posted at 1:28 pm on Fri, Oct 15, 2010.
Even though great strides against racism were made through the years, it seems to have returned with great fervor, so we NEED affirmative action kept in place. When a "free society" is irresponsible and makes things more difficult for some people than for others, we NEED affirmative action. I have already voted NO on 107 and am proud to have done so. I am white and am ashamed of those among "my" race who are racist - but they exist in greater numbers these days. I believe in equality for ALL, and I am sick of hearing "white" people boo hooing around feeling sorry for themselves and calling "other" races "racist." Those people are simply reacting to thte racism of white people.
snipes posted at 2:38 pm on Fri, Oct 15, 2010.
Ward Connerly you say? That a-hole?
Now I know to VOTE NO on Prop 107.
Thanks.
Slabside posted at 4:40 pm on Fri, Oct 15, 2010.
Affirmative Action is nothing but reverse racism.
Mesatoo posted at 10:27 am on Sat, Oct 16, 2010.
If we eliminate afirmative action to encourage minorities to enter college we should alsoinsist that "legacy" students be eliminated. More "legacy" students get into top universities than afirmative action candidates. How else do you think George W Bush got into Yale? He admitted he didn't have the grades etc from high school. So level the playing field for everyone.
Mesatoo posted at 10:29 am on Sat, Oct 16, 2010.
Elite Colleges, or Colleges for the Elite? Legacy students versus afirmative action article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/opinion/30kahlenberg.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general
ElPeneDeCaballo posted at 8:02 pm on Sat, Oct 16, 2010.
Anyone who wants to keep affirmative action is a traior to this country's values and the nation itself. If you wnat to keep
AA GET THE HHEELL OUT OIF MY COUNTRY!!