A Majority of Voters Supported Prop. 107 in Arizona; It's Not Racist

The concept commonly known as "affirmative action" in America has a noble beginning. Originated during one of the most tumultuous periods in American history - the "civil rights" era - affirmative action was launched in 1961 to usher in a policy of nondiscrimination.

By the mid-1960s, affirmative action had been transformed into a series of policies and programs whose purpose was to increase the number of "minorities" in the public workplace, in public contracting, and in public college enrollment.

Throughout its history, it has been widely acknowledged that affirmative action, as it was evolving, could not endure. In fact, at frequent times following its creation, even members of the United States Supreme Court, while affirming the continued use of race as a constitutional approach in certain areas of American life, strongly suggested the day would come when affirmative action would have to yield to the fundamental principle of equal treatment for all Americans without regard to race or color.

A prominent Arizonan, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, opined in 2003 that "a core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race. Accordingly, race-conscious ... policies must be limited in time. Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle."

For the appropriate time to end race preferences in Arizona, "that time is now," the Arizona Republic so eloquently put it in one of its editorials. By a 60-40 percent margin, the people of Arizona concurred on November 2, 2010.

Now, with the election behind us, the process of applying principles of true equality to the public sector of Arizona life must begin in earnest. As one who has been involved in all five of the statewide ballot initiatives in America that have ended race preferences, I believe it might be useful to address some of the criticisms and concerns expressed before and in the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 107.

First, there are those who suggest some sort of "right wing" effort underway to "turn back the clock" on equal opportunity in Arizona. Construing Proposition 107 as part of some "anti-ethnic" conspiracy is blatantly false, especially when one considers that an identical initiative passed in the blue states of California, Michigan and Washington by margins of 55-45, 58-42 an 59-41, respectively.

The fundamental pillars of American society are freedom and the principle of equal treatment for all without regard to the color of our skin, our gender or our ethnic background. People flock to our nation from all around the globe in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families based on these principles. Implicit in these principles is the belief in the concept of individual merit.

Some fear that applying colorblind government will have the "unintended consequence" of erasing "diversity" at the university and in the workplace. That fear is misplaced, first because "diversity" involves more than skin color and ethnic background; and second, if we accept the premise that "civil rights" belong to all of us, regardless of skin color, then diversity must necessarily be secondary to equality.

This does not mean that the university and other institutions are forbidden from casting a wide net when they recruit. To the contrary, such strategies are encouraged by the spirit of 107 to ensure that nondiscrimination is occurring.

University of Arizona President Robert Shelton is correct when he states there are race neutral methods of pursuing "diversity" within the legal framework of 107 and we offer our assistance to him in the pursuit of that objective. A simple solution to enable many so-called diversity programs and scholarships to continue is to expand their access to all, without regard to race or gender. As a matter of equity and fairness public funds should not be used to discriminate. This prohibition also applies to private funds routed through the University.

On the other hand, explicit preferences in contracting, such as one being implemented by a major Arizona municipality, cannot survive the demand of 107 for equal treatment. Such contracting bid preferences must be terminated. In their place, however, nothing forbids a municipality from "casting a wide net" among small businesses by assisting with the removal of procurement obstacles that confront small business owners of all ethnic and gender backgrounds.

As one who traveled from one end of Arizona to the other - and all parts in between - I can attest to the goodwill of those who voted in favor of 107. Their motives are pure and their faith in the principle that all of us are "created equal" is now a constitutional dictate of Arizona.

In 2011, we will observe the fiftieth anniversary of "affirmative action." It has served a useful purpose during its existence. But, like many government creations, the dynamics of a vibrant and creative society such as America have made government-sanctioned discrimination an unacceptable cure for the disease of racial discrimination. We must now live out the American creed of equal treatment from our government for all of our people.

With the mentality and mind-set of the fourth generation of those below, "gimme" is a career and sole source of income:

This is the constituency that assures Democrat "wins" in elections, year after year, and results in the inner-cities like Detroit, that we see as a result.

Hispanic citizens DO! Although one of my best friends, as red-blooded conservative American Hispanic as you can get HATES the Arizona law, because he thinks he’ll get pulled over by police because of his brown skin. I am torn by this because he is the first one to vote for things like prop 187 in CA.

I swear to God I heard on the radio this morning a Joy Behar blurb in which she says that something like Prop. 107 never could pass in her state because the illegals wouldn’t vote for it......and she was NOT joking.....

“The concept commonly known as “affirmative action” in America has a noble beginning.”

Connerly is morally and historically confused. Moreover, we don’t need “diversity”; we need excellence. The two are incompatible.

If anyone doesn’t want to do the work to be excellent at what he does, he doesn’t need to be in a university, an apprenticeship, etc. To remove any possible ambiguity, blacks don’t need black doctors; they need excellent doctors. The “diversity” mongering in Bakke resulted in the deaths of blacks who were “treated” by the affirmative action, unqualified mental case that stole Bakke’s admission to medical school. Bakke went on to be a productive practitioner.

I remember arguing about this with two liberals when it happened. When I pointed out that Bakke had the highest score and that this was blatant discrimination there answer was, "well he only had a half point higher!". I asked them what the cut off should be before racial discrimination was not allowed, 1 point, 10 points, what? They had no answer and they didn't like it that I kept calling affirmative action discrimination, which is exactly what it is and it was never "noble" either in it's beginning or later.

It was designed for one thing and one thing only: to stick it to whitey and teach him a lesson.

One-half point of what? Bakke was far more qualified than the affirmative action admit, who, by the way, was mysteriously murdered after he had killed a patient or two and had injured others.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.