Posted on 08/21/2003 8:10:59 PM PDT by familyop
What Yvette Falarca, BAMN, is covering up is the fact that the vast majority of Californians do not at all fit into any of the categories of "race" that Felarca supports. And all Californians are beingforced by their own government to fit into a generic category which doesn't apply, except it benefits very specific interest groups. What else she is not telling here that is that some cases, if one does NOT provide a "race" for a government sponsored or government subsidized entity -- one can not either get the service nor do particular transactions through the state. In any other time in the world's history, this would have been called "segregation". Vote YES on Prop 54 to end this hideous branding of people by generic means, or the "look" test. The government categories of exclusionary race are now well over 100. But, if one were to offer endless boxes to "check" equal to the exact population of every individual in California -- you'd have the Racial Privacy Initiative. Standard 'race" medical exemptions, law enforcement are in this init to cover these realities, federal statutes remain in place.
My question to the opponents is: Is your place of employment, your entity being subsidized by the state to segregating approximately 30 million people into non-applicable categories so you can collect taxpayer subisidies?
Pamela Kelly, California
http://www.blackbritain.co.uk/News/News.asp?i=3D378&= c=3Dus
Racial Privacy Initiative
The Racial Privacy Initiative when it becomes law will forbid the state of California from identifying its citizens by race, except in very limited contexts such as medical research and law enforcement ...
18/08/2003Black Britain
© Copyright http://www.blackbritain.co.uk
Racial Privacy Initiative (RPI) is a California constitutional initiative that will come before voters in California's election in October 2003. The Racial Privacy Initiative when it becomes law will forbid the state of California from identifying its citizens by race, except in very limited contexts such as medical research and law enforcement.
The Initiative provides, "The state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of public education, public contracting or public employment" - this is also Section 32 (a) is added to Article I of the California Constitution.
Also called Proposition 54: The Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin initiative (CRECNO) It will be listed as Proposition 54 on ballot papers for California elections on October 07 2003. If approved by California voters it would prohibit the collection of racial information about employees and students at any state institution from 01 January 2005.
The Race Privacy Initiative is the brainchild of Mr. Ward Connerly. It was through his efforts that California was able to vote in 1996 to eliminate race preferences in state education, hiring and contracts.
Mr. Connerly said the aim of his current initiative is to get the state government out of the racial classification business and move the state of California one step closer to a colour-blind government.
The issues contained in this initiative are being increasingly blurred in the United States. For example, the 2000 census in the US allowed Americans to categorise themselves in 63 different ways, by ticking as many different boxes as they felt applied to them.
Education remains one of the key areas of debate. In Mr. Connerly's view education administrators have obsessively focused on the race of every one of its applicants and the racial makeup of every incoming class. However he opines the academic gap between so-called "under-represented minorities" and other students continues to widen.
He adds, "...By removing race from the equation we will force our state government to look at actual people and solve real problems, rather than rely on the proxy of race. The feeble quality of education in many schools, particularly those in low-income areas, is indeed a serious concern. But why do educators need to know the race of a fourth-grader who can't read in order to know that the child must be taught to read?...".
Other supporters of the Racial Privacy Initiative (RPI), say passage would mark a giant step toward a colour-blind society. They argue that the state's system of racial classification is outdated and point out that the system has been used in the past to segregate schools and identify Japanese during World War II for internment.
Ms. Diane Schachterle, initiative coordinator for the campaign said:Racial classifications have no place in an equal and free society, and the whole racial classification system needs to come to an end. So the Racial Privacy Initiative is a measured step for the California government to begin to move away from the use of race".
However some affirmative action supporters are campaigning against the ballot measure, deriding it as the "Protect White Privilege Initiative."
One other group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), which describes itself as a militant "new civil rights movement," stated that the Racial Privacy Initiative was a racist tool of segregationists.
Ms. Yvette Felarca of BAMN said, "It's called the Racial Privacy Initiative, but it actually seeks to keep racism private. Proposition 54 is an anti-affirmative action that would increase the level of racism and segregation in California that's already been made to be unacceptable because of the ban on affirmative action with Proposition 209. It provides a cover for the continuation of white privilege and inequality in California when it comes to, for instance, enrollment at the state's flagship public universities. This society is saturated with the question of race and racism. That white privilege continues to exist and institutional - not just individual - but institutional racism continues to function".
Other opponents include the California Teachers Association, the Mexican American Legal Defence Aid, the Sierra Club and the University of California's Board of Regents.
Another view was that should race issues be taken out of the public domain and structure, it may increase the prospect of peace.
The Racial Privacy Initiative when it becomes law will forbid the state of California from identifying its citizens by race, except in very limited contexts such as medical research and law enforcement.
While I don't think a law should stop the police from describing a wanted person as "black" or "white", we should stop collecting crime data according to racial categories (if we really want to be consistent under the RPI).
Other opponents include the California Teachers Association, the Mexican American Legal Defence Aid, the Sierra Club and the University of California's Board of Regents.
Ah, yes, the Sierra Club... proving again that environmental protection is not its only issue. In fact, judging from the amount of junk mail we receive from them, the environment doesn't seem to be much of an issue at all to the Sierra Club.
;-)
Because the value of data collection is dubious and the cost potentially enormous, RPI prohibits state-mandated data collection in the context of law enforcement but does not foreclose the possibility should local agencies want to bear the costs and risks of this experimental reaction.
That's what I wanted to hear. I'm glad to see that racial data collection would be prohibited, to a certain extent, without prohibiting officers from referring to race in the descriptions of wanted criminals. Hopefully, this will pass in CA, and the rest of the country will follow suit.
Absolutely!
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Republicans, OTOH, ALWAYS work with Democrats. And the #$!@#% media NEVER points any of this out. You bet! opponents are not basing their 'complaints" upon what is actually IN Prop 54. No, no.. they are doing the diverting "thing" again. And slurring reputations. Opponents know how to be sneaky, cunning, and viscious. But work with anyone with an opinion diverse from their OWN? It can't be done. (Thanks for listening to my rant!) :) And thank you very much for your kind words and enlightened response, TofTaxes.
Alia
I think you hit the proverbial nail right on its head, so to speak. One of the Democrats on a particular forum is a woman who claims that she works for an epilepsy organization. The first thing she said was that RPI would prohibit her organization from compiling statistics to help "segments of the population." When I referred her to the RPI link and the clause exempting medical treatment, she claimed that the clause doesn't exempt her from collecting statistics to find out which "segments of the population" are "under-served". I suppose that means her organization receives funding according to the skincolor and facial features of its patients. What a hustle! (I could understand if epilepsy afflicted people with a particular ethnic/racial ancestry more than another, but even she says that it doesn't). I'm guessing that money is behind their opposition to it, too.
But when opponents continued to go over the top on the "medical exemptions" clause -- that clued me in fully. That they were attempting to set the stage for Hillary Care/Universal healthcare. They weren't worried about the medical exemption clause -- they refuse to in real time discuss it - Their fears, their worries. They are lobbying for a political agenda at the national level -- seemingly not very worried about scaring to death a gadzillion minorities in CA through their false claims -- INSPITE OF THE FACTUAL, WRITTEN WORD - the exemption clauses within Prop 54.
Yes, she did. But, she doesn't seem to know what she's talking about. She just hates conservatives - I'm sure you know the type. I even pointed to the clause that said something like "collection of racial data in order to receive federal funds is exempt," but she ignored it.
And, how ironic that anyone who supports this initiative is demonized as "racist". I have three sons, each of whom could be "classified" as "black". The gov't's "racial categories" and "race studies" and "racial preferences" only seem to create a stigma. And then the people who want to remove that stigma are called "racist". And the sheep fall for it! Unbelievable!
Well, thanks again for your comments.
P.S. I was going to just now link you to another thread on RPI that I just noticed starting. Then I realized you posted it... lol.
In re your sons -- I tried, in experiment, registering one of my daughters as a "minority" at 6 different colleges, years ago. Of course, I had her there with me -- they took one look at her, and said "nope": She's not a minority. I said "her daddy is a minority"... Long story short -- I learned how quickly the "look test" was being used to support the use of those little boxes. Made me wanna modify that great line from the BBC Series: The Prisoner -- I am not a box, I am a free man!
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.