6/27/2009 8:03:00 AM Voters to get final say on affirmative action programs
Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer
Ward Connerly, architect of the original California constitutional measure to ban affirmative action and other similar programs, applauded Arizona lawmakers Monday after the Senate gave final approval to putting a similar measure on the state ballot in 2010. Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, sponsored the measure, saying Arizonans should vote on whether they want to allow what he called discrimination by government.
By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- Arizonans will decide next year if they want to outlaw affirmative action programs and any special programs or preferences for women and minorities.
On a 17-11 vote the Senate gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination by government on the basis of race, sex or ethnic origin. The measure, which already has been approved by the House, now goes on the 2010 ballot.
It will be the first time Arizonans get to vote on the issue. A similar initiative drive in 2008 failed when backers did not get enough signatures. But Californian Ward Connerly, who helped craft this measure, said that does not mean Arizonans don't want the language in the state constitution.
He said it reflected instead on the difficulties in getting measures on the ballot. And Connerly said the fact that other issues managed to qualify -- and some actually were approved -- is irrelevant.
The measure is aimed at any law, rule or regulation that would give any group preference in public employment, contracting or education. These range from admissions to the state's two publicly funded law schools to the set-aside and bid preferences offered by Tucson for minority-owned businesses.
"It is unconscionable that we are allowing government to discriminate in these areas,' said Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park. "That's not equal treatment.'
Connerly, who pushed through a similar measure in his home state in 1996, said it "sets the tone that government should not be discriminating against its citizens or granting anyone preferential treatment.'
He also said that this measure simply mirrors the intent of other civil rights laws that already ban discrimination.
"We sometimes forget that these laws are not just there for women and minorities,' he said.
"They're there to apply to everybody,' Connerly continued. "Black people aren't the only ones to have civil rights.'
Federal courts have outlawed numerical quotas that spell out that a certain percentage of school admissions, jobs or contracts must go to minorities or women.
But judges have upheld various "affirmative action' programs designed to help those whose groups have been underrepresented.
And the courts also have allowed certain bid preferences if the government can show that minority or women are not getting a share of contracts.
Montenegro said such programs are not justified.
"We cannot try to get rid of discrimination by foster and allowing government to discriminate,' he said. "It doesn't add up.'
Connerly, who is African-American, agreed.
"If you could convince me that there was compelling evidence that brown-skinned people, black people, Latinos, Native Americans, are genetically inferior and therefore we are disabled ... I would probably say, 'Yes, we need to allow preferences to make sure that those individuals could have a proper role in American life,' he said.
While Connerly says the measure is crafted to ensure that government treats everyone equally, it contains no prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Connerly said he wanted to keep this measure simple by mirroring the language of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act and did not want to invite litigation by adding other issues. The measure also makes no mention of religious discrimination.
Lobbyist Nick Simonetta said the design is to limit it to things that people cannot change like their race or sex.
Reader Comments
Posted: Sunday, June 28, 2009
Article comment by:
Focus on merit
"Lobbyist Nick Simonetta said the design is to limit it to things that people cannot change like their race or sex."
The argument being, of course, that by limiting affirmative action to things that cannot be changed, it is less distortionary. (Offering benefits, for example, based on shortness of hair might result in an increase in buzzcuts. Which may or may not be a bad thing, but it would result both in distortionary economic behavior AND in an increase in the number of beneficiaries.)
Which is what affirmative action does. Just that the writers of the law don't realize it.
Affirmative action causes blacks and hispanics to focus on areas where they will get the most benefits. They frequently major in human resources where they can specialize in diversity, or they major in political science or law.
They almost never major in physics. The math is tough. In the grading process, there are no bonus points based on race. And at the end of the game, the pay is relatively low compared to the difficulty.
So, asians (and asian immigrants) focus on physics. Affirmative action causes both groups to choose the path of least resistance--often regardless of ability. So it is economically distortionary.
Affirmative action charges different races different prices for tuition. And since tuition is at least half the cost of raising a child, this results in latino and black kids, on average, costing 30-40% less to raise than white or asian kids. It would be reasonable to expect that latinos and blacks would have more children than white people, because it costs them less. And while correlation does not imply causation, latinos and blacks do in fact have more children than white people.
It is true that a persons race cannot be changed. However, the number of children a person has, and with whom, are things that can be changed. So while within one generation, race-based economic incentives like affirmative action do not result in a change in behavior or an increase in the number of beneficiaries, over multiple generations, these incentives do result in an increase in the number of beneficiaries.
Affirmative action is economically distortionary. The fact that it focuses on things that a person cannot change in thier lifetime means it is slowly economically distortionary, but nature and economic incentives, ultimately, trump politics. The predictable "ever-increasing number of beneficiaries" is happening--and the law, if not scaled back and eventually eliminated, will simply collapse under its own weight. Everyone, save a poor few individuals, will eventually be eligible for Affirmative Action. Meanwhile, America will suffer greatly from focusing on too many things other than merit.
A white or asian mind, after all, is also a terrible thing to waste.
