Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Why women should support Proposition 107
FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/38.html
FACT: GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
FACT: SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.
"I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.
Source:
http://http//www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html
IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
“But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html
And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)
Blog for Arizona writer resorts to claiming Yes on Proposition 107 said something else since they're losing the argument
The left wing Blog for Arizona/Reappropriate has a post claiming that "Yes on 107 wouldn't mind if battered women's shelters and breast cancer screenings closed their doors." How does the author come to this bizarre conclusion? We pointed out that those services will NOT have to close their doors if Prop. 107 passes, it is a scare tactic used by the left in order to frighten people from voting for Prop. 107. Not a single domestic violence shelter or breast cancer screening service has had to close its doors since this initiative passed in four other states, beginning back in 1996 in California.
The author moans about how terrible it would be if men were allowed to use domestic violence shelter services too. Why? She doesn't provide a single example of a bad incident involving a man who used a domestic violence shelter service, she just implies that the abusers of women who are victimized would get in (since they're not victims, that's not what would happen - only real male victims would be permitted).
Her arguments essentially come down to this analogy: Vote No on 107 otherwise there *could possibly be a nuclear war.* Even though there hasn't been any nuclear wars since this initiative passed in four other states, it is still a remote possibility. Therefore, you must be in favor of these dire consequences if you vote for Prop. 107.
The author ridicules us for refuting two of her articles about Prop. 107 within 24 hours, saying we should be spending more time getting out the vote. Really? How did she become such an elections expert? A big part of campaigns is social media, and when you're down to a day before the election, it is crucial to refute the barrage of articles that suddenly appear by the opposition, so voters doing google searches on how to vote will find your side of the debate. We still have plenty of workers getting out the vote.
The author moans about how terrible it would be if men were allowed to use domestic violence shelter services too. Why? She doesn't provide a single example of a bad incident involving a man who used a domestic violence shelter service, she just implies that the abusers of women who are victimized would get in (since they're not victims, that's not what would happen - only real male victims would be permitted).
Her arguments essentially come down to this analogy: Vote No on 107 otherwise there *could possibly be a nuclear war.* Even though there hasn't been any nuclear wars since this initiative passed in four other states, it is still a remote possibility. Therefore, you must be in favor of these dire consequences if you vote for Prop. 107.
The author ridicules us for refuting two of her articles about Prop. 107 within 24 hours, saying we should be spending more time getting out the vote. Really? How did she become such an elections expert? A big part of campaigns is social media, and when you're down to a day before the election, it is crucial to refute the barrage of articles that suddenly appear by the opposition, so voters doing google searches on how to vote will find your side of the debate. We still have plenty of workers getting out the vote.
Evidence the UofA considers race in admissions; plus myths propagated by Arizona Students Association
From Desert Lamp, an independent UA newspaper
Proposition 107, False Facts, and More Reasons to Vote Yes
On her blog, ASA Chair Elma Delic gives an explanation for the organization’s endorsement of a “No” vote on Proposition 107. She does so in the position of ASA Chair, on behalf of the supposedly non-partisan organization, with no greater explanation of how the organization claims to have garnered student opinion on this matter than a vague allusion to “talking to organizations” and some policy analysis from the ASA Government Affairs Director. While Ms. Delic is undoubtedly earnest in her explanation, a few of her points are factually wrong, and a few more advocate poor policy decisions that further engender state-mandated racism. This post is yet more evidence of ASA’s decidedly partisan consideration of ballot issues, and gives students a glimpse at the kind of rhetoric espoused by an organization that claims to be the strongest voice for students to the Arizona legislature.
Delic writes:
This constitutional amendment, if passed, has a great potential for harm to institutions of higher education. Some of the initiative’s supporters are referring to Prop. 107 as an “anti-affirmative action” amendment. However, this is very misleading because Arizona’s universities do not use quotas, or take into account race or sex during the admittance process. This means that every student that is enrolled at a university got here based on their merit.(Emphasis mine)
The universities may not call then quotas, but they most certainly do consider race in admissions. This from the OIRPS [pdf] (highlighting added):
From this document, we see clearly that race and ethnicity are indeed considered in admissions decisions, and are in fact given the same weight as standardized test scores and admissions essays. Further, the universities have repeatedly mentionedthat increasing diversity is a priority; barring magic, the only way for the relative percentage of a given ethnic group to increase would be to, you know, consider ethnicity when admitting applicants. This study[pdf] from the Center for Equal Opportunity revealed The James E Rogers College of Law found that rejected non-BHNA applicants had higher LSAT scores and GPAs than accepted BHNAs – further belying the idea that race isn’t taken into account. Even setting aside the merits of the idea that universities should descriminate for race, to say that theydon’t is flatly erroneous.
Delic continues, “In fact, after a similar proposition passed in California (Proposition 209) they saw a decrease in enrollment by both Black and Latino students.” This also proves false: though enrollment decreased the year directly after the measure passed, enrollment has increased for all recorded ethnic groups, in the case of Hispanic enrollment by nearly 10%. The following increases took place with no state-mandated race-based preferences:
African American 1996: 4% (1,628) 2010: 4.2% (2,624)
Latino 1996: 15.4% (5,744) 2010: 23% (14,081)
Asians 1996: 29.8% (11,085) 2010: 37.5% (22,877)
Native Americans 1996: 0.9% (360) 2010: 0.8% (531)
Whites 1996: 44% (16,465) 2010: 34% (20,807)
Delic also presents, “Ward Connerly, the creator of this initiative, is a former University of California Regent. He is also the founder and leader of the American Civil Rights Institute which pays him millions of dollars annually to pass anti-equal opportunity legislation across the country.” Her personal claims about Mr. Connerly are un-linked and unsubstantiated, but excepting the factuality of this claim, the example is not unlike the way in which ASA gets hundreds of thousands of student dollars to espouse partisan interests (such as this one) in students’ name, with little to no accountability on what students actually care about.
The endorsement continues, “For example, in Michigan the Supreme Court found that the Michigan “Civil Rights Initiative” had engaged in system voter fraud, however, it remained on the ballot because it did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” This is also incorrect: The Sixth Circuit Court (of the federal judiciary) denied to issue an injunction to remove the proposition from the ballot, because the election had already taken place. The Supreme Court denied to hear the appeal for alternative relief (i.e. non-enforcement of the measure) without comment.
Delic next presents that, “Connerly tried to get his initiative on the Arizona ballot in 2008 (Prop. 104) but failed because he could not get enough legitimate signatures.” This is one version of what occurred: Prop. 104 failed to get on the ballot because Michael Slugocki and Kathleen Templin — both board members of ASA at the time — filed a formal complaint against the signatures. They filed this suit after ASA had voted to oppose the measure — muddying the motives considerably. Neither Templin nor Slugocki listed their affiliation with ASA on the formal complaint.
Delic continues:
The language in the proposition and title deceive the voter by calling it the “Arizona Civil Rights Amendment” and stating that it will end discriminatory practices by eliminating state funding to these practices. The amendment does not provide civil rights nor does it end discrimination –it removes the public’s ability to support individuals who need support, further disempowering already underprivileged groups.
Nowhere in the post appears a link to the easily-accessible ballot information, not is the official ballot language printed, even in excerpt. While it may indeed be confusing to consider how confusing a passage is in abstraction, having it to read does make that a bit easier. The official ballot language:
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:
1. Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended by adding section 36 as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
SECTION 36. A. THIS STATE SHALL NOT GRANT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP ON THE BASIS OF RACE, SEX, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE OPERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC EDUCATION OR PUBLIC CONTRACTING.
1. PROHIBIT BONA FIDE QUALIFICATIONS BASED ON SEX THAT ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC EDUCATION OR PUBLIC CONTRACTING.
2. PROHIBIT ACTION THAT MUST BE TAKEN TO ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY FEDERAL PROGRAM, IF INELIGIBILITY WOULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF FEDERAL MONIES TO THIS STATE.
3. INVALIDATE ANY COURT ORDER OR CONSENT DECREE THAT IS IN FORCE AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.
C. THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION ARE THE SAME, REGARDLESS OF THE INJURED PARTY’S RACE, SEX, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS ARE OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF THE EXISTING ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAWS OF THIS STATE.
F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “STATE” INCLUDES THIS STATE, A CITY, TOWN OR COUNTY, A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, INCLUDING THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY AND NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY, A COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, A SCHOOL DISTRICT, A SPECIAL DISTRICT OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION IN THIS STATE.
2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.
The post continues to present, in super-scary italics, “Student groups that represent certain demographics could lose public funding. Entire departments in the universities could be shut down.” We here at the Lamp are willing to bet ASA a substantial amount of money that this will not happen (no, seriously — hit us up!). This law only dictates that programs be open to persons of all race/ethnicity/gender/etc, not that programs can’t study or focus upon one group. The list of “threatened programs” included here are also allowed under the law, as we see here. One needs only to look at states in which measure like have already passed similar measures to see that public programs similar to the ones listed still exist.
The post concludes with, “ASA encourages all students to educate themselves before going to the polls in November or submitting their early ballot.” On this point, the Lamp agrees — but we encourage said education to include empirical evidence, reputable links, and facts that feature legitimate citations.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Prop. 107 opposition trots out false argument that Prop. 107 will eliminate domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening
First of all, the language only bans government preferences in hiring, contracting and higher education. Domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening programs do not fall within those areas.
Secondly, any program in risk of being eliminated just has to open its services up to men.
The article relies upon two lawsuits in California where some men's rights activists filed complaints against domestic violence shelters that only offered services to women. Both complainants lost, and there was never any finding by the courts that California's equivalent Prop. 209 had endangered them. Not very compelling evidence that these services will be in jeopardy in Arizona.
Even IF there were lawsuits against women-only domestic violence shelters in Arizona, and IF they were successful, all the shelters would need to do would be to admit men like other domestic violence shelters.
Same goes for breast cancer screening programs, and those would probably have even more likelihood of being permitted to remain as women-only, since they likely constitute a bona fide sex difference between men and women.
Would it be unfortunate if some men's rights groups filed lawsuits to attempt to stop these kinds of services from operating? It might not even cost taxpayers any money, since a judge could choose to require the men's groups when they inevitably lose to pay costs and fees, based on them losing in the past in California. The men's groups may file lawsuits like this anyway, with or without Prop. 107 being in existence, citing other parts of the Constitution, as they did in the California lawsuits.
This is just another Chicken Little "sky is falling" attempt to come up with the absolute worst possible case scenario, which isn't going to happen based on prior history in states where this initiative has passed.
Yes on 107 election night party at the Hyatt - stop by
Misleading Prop. 107 opposition signs claim they help women - but they don't tell you how affirmative action is hurting women
MYTH: WOMEN ARE NOT HARMED BY RACE PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/38.html
FACT: GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
FACT: SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.
"I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.
Source:
http://http//www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html
IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
“But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html
And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)
from
Saturday, October 30, 2010
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....
Goals by Job Group Report | |||
Description | Female | Minority | |
1202 | Administrators-Director Level | 25% | |
1242 | Administrators-Assistant Director Level | 63% | |
2101 | Faculty-Agriculture-Tenure Track | 39% | |
2163 | Faculty-Education-Not on Track | 21% | |
2201 | Faculty-Fine Arts-Tenure Track | 56% | 17% |
2221 | Faculty-Humanities-Tenure Track | 57% | |
2261 | Faculty-Science-Tenure Track | 31% | |
2340 | Faculty-Pharmacy | 49% | |
| 3240 | Research Support-Specialists-Appointed | 24% | |
3260 | Research Scientists | 49% | |
3320 | Scientists-Other | 41% | |
3420 | Engineers | 18% | 24% |
3520 | Curators, Curatorial/Museum Specialists | 19% | |
| 3540 | Computing Managers | 33% | |
3567 | Computer Specialists-Appointed | 24% | |
3568 | Computer Specialists-Staff, Senior/Principal | 32% | 27% |
3569 | Computer Specialists-Staff, Other | 36% | |
3780 | TV, Radio Broadcast Occupations | 51% | |
5020 | Animal Technicians | 73% | |
5140 | Media Technicians | 53% | |
5160 | Staff Technicians | 30% | |
6060 | General Maintenance | 21% | 53% |
7020 | Agricultural Related Occupations | 32% | |
7080 | Drivers | 53% | |
7100 | Food Preparation Service Occupations | 51% | |
7160 | Supervisors-Service/Maintenance | 52% | 59% |
7200 | Materials Handlers, Controllers, Trades Helpers | 30% | |
This chart is prominently posted on the University of Arizona's website here.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Not true that Yes on 107 has gotten it wrong on higher education
Blog for Arizona has written a piece entitled, "How the Yes on Proposition 107 side gets it wrong on higher education." The article's premise is that gender preferences in universities aren't bad, because women do well anyways, and race preferences for minorities aren't bad, because they aren't doing as well. Note the contradictory arguments.
The article selectively uses a few cherry-picked success rates for women in higher education, and says that is evidence there is nothing wrong with using affirmative action to put them in more academically competitive universities than they would have qualified for on their own merit. But that is ignoring the whole picture. Just because more women go to college now than men, and do fine at universities like Harvard, does not mean the vast numbers in the middle will do well at some of the middle-to-top-tier universities. Statistics show that the failure rates for women and minorities increase at those middle-to-top tier universities when they are artificially pushed ahead of their abilities.
Even if women were doing wonderfully as a whole everywhere in higher education, isn't that an argument to get rid of preferences for them?
Regarding minority preferences in higher education, the article claims that because one school, George Washington University, claims to have high minority graduation rates due to its aggressive affirmative action policies, it must not be true that minorities suffer poor graduation rates when pushed into schools beyond their academic abilities. Well, that bold statement from a school which obviously has an agenda contradicts actual evidence from schools after the passage of California's Prop. 209, a similar initiative in California. The 4-year graduation rate for blacks and Latinos at UC-Davis prior to Prop. 209 was a mere 26%, whereas after it passed, it doubled to 52%. That is a huge difference.
This doesn't mean that some women or minorities are dumber or less capable than others. It just means you can't paint everyone with the same broad brush. Individuals are unique. If there are some who don't perform as well academically, there will also be some white males who don't perform as well academically. Maybe much of it is due to a disadvantaged upbringing. But disadvantaged upbringings aren't a race or gender problem. Putting a band-aid on the problem isn't going to fix the problem. By the time a student makes it into college, it's usually too late to try and catch them up, teach them better study habits, etc. Efforts to help the disadvantaged need to be made earlier on in a child's life, and shouldn't be based on skin color or gender. A Harvard study of affirmative action found that 86% of the blacks at the 28 universities looked at were middle or upper class - affirmative action is primarily helping non-disadvantaged blacks.
Prop. 107 won't eliminate minority and women recruitment and retention programs, as the article claims. Where similar initiatives have passed in other states, those programs have remained. Not a single one has been eliminated. They have simply made minor adjustments and opened up their membership to non-minorities and men.
It is time to end the cherry-picked sob statistics and look at the the whole picture. Martin Luther King, Jr. once had a vision of a society where his children wouldn't be judged by the color of their skin. We're never going to get to that stage if we turn around and judge people by their skin right back.
The article selectively uses a few cherry-picked success rates for women in higher education, and says that is evidence there is nothing wrong with using affirmative action to put them in more academically competitive universities than they would have qualified for on their own merit. But that is ignoring the whole picture. Just because more women go to college now than men, and do fine at universities like Harvard, does not mean the vast numbers in the middle will do well at some of the middle-to-top-tier universities. Statistics show that the failure rates for women and minorities increase at those middle-to-top tier universities when they are artificially pushed ahead of their abilities.
Even if women were doing wonderfully as a whole everywhere in higher education, isn't that an argument to get rid of preferences for them?
Regarding minority preferences in higher education, the article claims that because one school, George Washington University, claims to have high minority graduation rates due to its aggressive affirmative action policies, it must not be true that minorities suffer poor graduation rates when pushed into schools beyond their academic abilities. Well, that bold statement from a school which obviously has an agenda contradicts actual evidence from schools after the passage of California's Prop. 209, a similar initiative in California. The 4-year graduation rate for blacks and Latinos at UC-Davis prior to Prop. 209 was a mere 26%, whereas after it passed, it doubled to 52%. That is a huge difference.
This doesn't mean that some women or minorities are dumber or less capable than others. It just means you can't paint everyone with the same broad brush. Individuals are unique. If there are some who don't perform as well academically, there will also be some white males who don't perform as well academically. Maybe much of it is due to a disadvantaged upbringing. But disadvantaged upbringings aren't a race or gender problem. Putting a band-aid on the problem isn't going to fix the problem. By the time a student makes it into college, it's usually too late to try and catch them up, teach them better study habits, etc. Efforts to help the disadvantaged need to be made earlier on in a child's life, and shouldn't be based on skin color or gender. A Harvard study of affirmative action found that 86% of the blacks at the 28 universities looked at were middle or upper class - affirmative action is primarily helping non-disadvantaged blacks.
Prop. 107 won't eliminate minority and women recruitment and retention programs, as the article claims. Where similar initiatives have passed in other states, those programs have remained. Not a single one has been eliminated. They have simply made minor adjustments and opened up their membership to non-minorities and men.
It is time to end the cherry-picked sob statistics and look at the the whole picture. Martin Luther King, Jr. once had a vision of a society where his children wouldn't be judged by the color of their skin. We're never going to get to that stage if we turn around and judge people by their skin right back.
Refuting the "5 reasons to reject Prop. 107" article
The blog Three Sonorans has written a piece on why to vote against Prop. 107. All five of their arguments can be easily refuted.
1) The article claims that Prop. 107 does not come from Arizona. This isn't accurate. The Arizona State Legislature referred it to the ballot - every single Republican state legislator (except one who was absent) voted to refer it to the ballot. The article points out that funding for Prop. 107 - now that it is already on the ballot - comes from Ward Connerly's Civil Rights Institute, out of California. The article conveniently overlooks the fact however that virtually all of the funding for the opposition also comes from out of state - from unions, and one in-state union. Their biggest contributor to the opposition is the Service Employees International Union, based out of Washington, D.C. If they don't have a problem with their money coming from out of state and unions, why do they have a problem with the other side? At least Yes on Prop. 107 follows the law and puts "out of state funding" on their signs. The opposition committee doesn't bother to put that on their signs.
2) The article claims that discrimination is already illegal, under state law and the Constitution. State law prohibits some kinds of discrimination, and the Constitution vaguely prohibits discrimination, but the truth is reverse discrimination is occurring in many places. Every time a woman or minority-owned business gets a 7% bid preference from the City of Tucson, reverse discrimination occurs against the equally qualified bidder who bid less but was denied the contract. Every time a woman or minority is admitted to our universities over someone else equally qualified due to their race or gender, reverse discrimination occurs. Every time a woman or minority receives a faculty position at the University of Arizona that is denied to someone else due to their race or gender, reverse discrimination occurs. And these are just a few of the many places this is occurring in Arizona. Why should my daughter receive a benefit but not my son? Why should my half-Hispanic child receive a preference but not my other child?
3) The article claims that Prop. 107 is anti-Civil Rights and will roll back equal opportunity. Not sure what this vague statement means. If it means Prop. 107 will roll back race and gender preferences that cause reverse discrimination, well that's true. When affirmative action was implemented in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was only meant to stop discrimination against someone. Not push people ahead of others. Unfortunately extreme activists have turned the 1964 Civil Rights Act on its head, and gone way beyond the affirmative action it intended, morphing it into preferences which now reverse discriminate. Prop. 107 would eliminate that reverse discrimination and follow through with the true intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was to treat people equally and not discriminate based on race or gender.
4) The article says that Prop. 107 claims to be about ending quotas, but quotas don't exist in Arizona. This isn't true. Quotas blatantly exist everywhere, although the wording is disguised to pretend they're not quotas. For example, look at the University of Arizona's blatant quotas for faculty hires. They refer to these quotas as "federally mandated placement goals" instead of "quotas." Clever. But they're not fooling anyone. If they're not quotas, then what are they? They list a distorted quota goal of 63% women for Administrators at the Assistant Director Level. Women barely make up more than half the population! They want 53% of General Maintenance positions to go to minorities. These are outrageous and only some of many listed on that page.
5) Finally, the article claims that Prop. 107 will cost Arizona jobs, saying where it has passed in California, minority and women owned businesses went out of business. But there is no evidence that those businesses went out of businesses due to the initiative there - they could have gone out of business for other reasons.
If anything, Prop. 107 will create more jobs, because it will take away the expensive bid preferences given to minority and women owned businesses that are costing taxpayers more money. Instead, the most cost-effective businesses will win the bids, the ones that are the most prudent about cutting costs, therefore creating more employment.
For other myths from the Prop. 107 opposition and the response refuting them, click here
1) The article claims that Prop. 107 does not come from Arizona. This isn't accurate. The Arizona State Legislature referred it to the ballot - every single Republican state legislator (except one who was absent) voted to refer it to the ballot. The article points out that funding for Prop. 107 - now that it is already on the ballot - comes from Ward Connerly's Civil Rights Institute, out of California. The article conveniently overlooks the fact however that virtually all of the funding for the opposition also comes from out of state - from unions, and one in-state union. Their biggest contributor to the opposition is the Service Employees International Union, based out of Washington, D.C. If they don't have a problem with their money coming from out of state and unions, why do they have a problem with the other side? At least Yes on Prop. 107 follows the law and puts "out of state funding" on their signs. The opposition committee doesn't bother to put that on their signs.
2) The article claims that discrimination is already illegal, under state law and the Constitution. State law prohibits some kinds of discrimination, and the Constitution vaguely prohibits discrimination, but the truth is reverse discrimination is occurring in many places. Every time a woman or minority-owned business gets a 7% bid preference from the City of Tucson, reverse discrimination occurs against the equally qualified bidder who bid less but was denied the contract. Every time a woman or minority is admitted to our universities over someone else equally qualified due to their race or gender, reverse discrimination occurs. Every time a woman or minority receives a faculty position at the University of Arizona that is denied to someone else due to their race or gender, reverse discrimination occurs. And these are just a few of the many places this is occurring in Arizona. Why should my daughter receive a benefit but not my son? Why should my half-Hispanic child receive a preference but not my other child?
3) The article claims that Prop. 107 is anti-Civil Rights and will roll back equal opportunity. Not sure what this vague statement means. If it means Prop. 107 will roll back race and gender preferences that cause reverse discrimination, well that's true. When affirmative action was implemented in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was only meant to stop discrimination against someone. Not push people ahead of others. Unfortunately extreme activists have turned the 1964 Civil Rights Act on its head, and gone way beyond the affirmative action it intended, morphing it into preferences which now reverse discriminate. Prop. 107 would eliminate that reverse discrimination and follow through with the true intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was to treat people equally and not discriminate based on race or gender.
4) The article says that Prop. 107 claims to be about ending quotas, but quotas don't exist in Arizona. This isn't true. Quotas blatantly exist everywhere, although the wording is disguised to pretend they're not quotas. For example, look at the University of Arizona's blatant quotas for faculty hires. They refer to these quotas as "federally mandated placement goals" instead of "quotas." Clever. But they're not fooling anyone. If they're not quotas, then what are they? They list a distorted quota goal of 63% women for Administrators at the Assistant Director Level. Women barely make up more than half the population! They want 53% of General Maintenance positions to go to minorities. These are outrageous and only some of many listed on that page.
5) Finally, the article claims that Prop. 107 will cost Arizona jobs, saying where it has passed in California, minority and women owned businesses went out of business. But there is no evidence that those businesses went out of businesses due to the initiative there - they could have gone out of business for other reasons.
If anything, Prop. 107 will create more jobs, because it will take away the expensive bid preferences given to minority and women owned businesses that are costing taxpayers more money. Instead, the most cost-effective businesses will win the bids, the ones that are the most prudent about cutting costs, therefore creating more employment.
For other myths from the Prop. 107 opposition and the response refuting them, click here
New Poll: Independents Support Prop. 107
For Immediate Release
October 29, 2010
Contact Leon Drolet at 602-845-0107
New Poll: Independents Support Prop. 107
Registered independents strongly support Proposition 107, the proposed constitutional ban on affirmative action, according to a new poll conducted October 28th – 29th. The state-wide poll of 556 likely-voting registered independents reveals that independents support Prop. 107 by a margin of 58% - 42%. The poll was conducted by Dynamic Interactive and commissioned by the Yes on 107 campaign.
Proposition 107 would amend the Arizona Constitution to ban race and gender based affirmative action in public hiring, contracting and public education.
Poll participants, all of whom are registered independents with active vote histories, were asked the following question:
“Proposition 107 would make it unconstitutional for the government to use “affirmative action” programs that grant preferential treatment based on race, skin color or sex in hiring, promotions, public contracting or college admissions. Do you plan on voting yes on 107 to end quotas, diversity goals, and set-aside programs or do you plan on voting no on 107 to keep affirmative action in place?”
Voters were then asked who they were supporting for Governor: Republican Jan Brewer or Democrat Terry Goddard. Brewer led Goddard with registered independents by a 53% - 47% margin. Eighty percent of independents polled who supported Brewer also support Prop. 107, and 33% of independents supporting Goddard support Prop. 107.
“Arizonans are a fair people,” said Rachel Alexander, Chair of the Yes on 107 campaign. “The principle of treating every citizen equally crosses all political party lines. Independent voters support 107 because they want to end government ‘affirmative action’ policies that divide citizens by race and treat us differently.”
Opponents of Prop 107 now believe that admitted colorblind policies promote institutional racism!!
Listen to this clip from a No on 107 spokesperson (recorded at a press conference that they held on 10/27/2010) who first says that Prop 107 will continue institutionalized racism and then admits that Prop 107 is a colorblind policy. Even George Orwell couldn’t do enough mental gymnastics to follow this logic.Vote YES on 107 to end “affirmative action” policies that give preference based on race or sex in college admissions, public contracting, and public employment. A Yes vote on 107 will promote the original ideal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Colorblind government.
Click here to listen
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Arizona Republic editorializes in favor of Prop. 107 - AGAIN
Affirmative action no longer needed
Oct. 26, 2010
The Arizona Republic
Affirmative action wasn't meant to be a perpetual-motion machine. The policy served an important purpose, making up for missing opportunities in education and the workplace. But over time, the drawbacks have come to outweigh the advantages.
Voters should pull the plug. They should approve Proposition 107, which would amend the Arizona Constitution to ban affirmative-action programs in public employment, public education or public contracting.
Activist Ward Connerly, a former University of California regent and founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, argues persuasively against racial and gender preferences. Instead of creating a level playing field, they skew the game. Qualifications are subordinated to minority or gender status - certainly not the fair play that Americans value.
Affirmative action can raise unjust doubts about genuine achievements. Connerly tells how the African-American pilot of a commercial airliner thought he saw fear in the eyes of passengers, who wondered if he was truly qualified for the job.
Discrimination hasn't disappeared in America. But we have legal tools, including the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to deal with it directly.
When former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted to support affirmative action in 2003, she voiced the expectation that racial preferences would no longer be needed some day. O'Connor thought it would take another 25 years.
There's no reason to wait that long.
The time has come to end affirmative action. Arizonans should vote "yes" on Prop. 107.
Oct. 26, 2010
The Arizona Republic
Affirmative action wasn't meant to be a perpetual-motion machine. The policy served an important purpose, making up for missing opportunities in education and the workplace. But over time, the drawbacks have come to outweigh the advantages.
Voters should pull the plug. They should approve Proposition 107, which would amend the Arizona Constitution to ban affirmative-action programs in public employment, public education or public contracting.
Activist Ward Connerly, a former University of California regent and founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, argues persuasively against racial and gender preferences. Instead of creating a level playing field, they skew the game. Qualifications are subordinated to minority or gender status - certainly not the fair play that Americans value.
Affirmative action can raise unjust doubts about genuine achievements. Connerly tells how the African-American pilot of a commercial airliner thought he saw fear in the eyes of passengers, who wondered if he was truly qualified for the job.
Discrimination hasn't disappeared in America. But we have legal tools, including the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to deal with it directly.
When former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted to support affirmative action in 2003, she voiced the expectation that racial preferences would no longer be needed some day. O'Connor thought it would take another 25 years.
There's no reason to wait that long.
The time has come to end affirmative action. Arizonans should vote "yes" on Prop. 107.
Lame article by "Arizona University Watch" repeats same old myths about Prop. 107
Apology given for Twitter threat against Ward Connerly
Monday, October 25, 2010
UA law students' arguments against Prop. 107 are full of holes
A couple of University of Arizona law students, claiming to represent 98 other law students, have written a letter to the Yuma Sun complaining about Prop. 107. They gripe about the words the Prop. 107 campaign is using - but then play with words themselves. They claim that the Prop. 107 campaign is falsely asserting that "quotas" exist at UA law school, since the Supreme Court has ruled quotas are unconstitutional. Well you decide. Look at these "placement goals" at the University of Arizona, which require distorted percentages of women and minorities in faculty and employment positions. Prop. 107 opponents are simply using semantics to pretend that quotas no longer exist. And here is evidence that race-based admissions are occurring at the law school itself.
Finally, the law students complain that Prop. 107 is funded by out of state Ward Connerly. They fail to tell you that the biggest contributor to thei anti-Prop. 107 campaign is funded by - that's right - an out of state union, SEIU. They also fail to tell you that Prop. 107 was referred to the ballot by our Arizona state legislature. Not Ward Connerly, not outside interests, but our very own legislature. To try and describe this as as pushed by "out out of state interest groups" is misleading and dishonest.
Very disappointing to see this kind of disinformation coming from two law students who should know better.
CEO chairman Linda Chavez said: “Racial discrimination in university admissions is always appalling. But the degree of discrimination we have found here, at both schools but especially at Arizona State, is off the charts.” She noted that the odds ratio favoring African Americans over whites was 250 to 1 at the University of Arizona and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State. “As a result, nearly a thousand white students during the years we studied were denied admission even though they had higher undergraduate GPAs and LSATs than the average African American student who was admitted--and over a hundred Asian and Latino students were in the same boat with them.”The law students then contradict themselves. First they complain there are no quotas at UA Law School. Then they claim that if Prop. 107 passes, it will hurt the admissions process. Well you can't have it both ways - either race and gender preferences are or aren't occurring. In reality, if Prop. 107 passes, it will change the admissions process, but in a positive way. Minority and women students who are not academically qualified will attend less competitive schools instead, resulting in higher levels of academic success and graduation rates, as has occurred in other states where versions of Prop. 107 has passed. The sky will not fall, instead these students will have better chances of success, and will be spared the embarrassment of possibly failing.
Finally, the law students complain that Prop. 107 is funded by out of state Ward Connerly. They fail to tell you that the biggest contributor to thei anti-Prop. 107 campaign is funded by - that's right - an out of state union, SEIU. They also fail to tell you that Prop. 107 was referred to the ballot by our Arizona state legislature. Not Ward Connerly, not outside interests, but our very own legislature. To try and describe this as as pushed by "out out of state interest groups" is misleading and dishonest.
Very disappointing to see this kind of disinformation coming from two law students who should know better.
Prop. 107 opposition wrong to complain that less women/minorities will be admitted to higher ed
One of the arguments opponents to Prop. 107 like to use is that less women and minorities will be admitted to higher education if it passes. They point to lower admissions at the top public universities in the states where similar initiatives have passed; California, Michigan, Washington and Colorado. But they're only telling you half the story. Instead of attending the top couple of public universities in those states, more women and minorities are attending less competitive colleges, where their chances of graduating are much better. Instead of shunting them into universities they are not academically prepared for, leading them to embarrassing failure, they are able to obtain a university education in a school where they have a realistic chance of graduating.
In fact, women are actually hurt in higher education by race preferences. Preferences favor minorities over women, and there have been several high-profile lawsuits by women alleging reverse discrimination, where women won. And due to the fact that more women than men attend college nowadays, MEN are most likely of all to benefit from preferences as colleges attempt to retain balance!
There may be a valid argument that we need more women and minorities in better schools. But trying to force them there after they complete high school, when they haven't been adequately academically prepared, isn't the right way to do it. It only serves to embarrass them and ensure they will fail.
MYTH: RACE PREFERENCES IN STATE PROGRAMS BENEFIT “MINORITIES”
FACT: “If you compare 1995-96 with 1999-01 — a clear before-and-after Prop 209 comparison,” says Sander, a longtime liberal civil rights activist, “you’ll see that, for African-Americans, the 1995 class had a four-year graduation rate of 26%, while the 2001 class had a 52% graduation rate [Hispanics numbers are comparable]. For whites and Asians, it barely changes. This is almost certainly due largely to the reduction of preferences. The five and six-year grad rates for minorities get pretty close to the white rates [within five points], which of course means that differences in academic performance have also narrowed a lot.”
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne
Prop 209 has largely worked as advertised, has not adversely affected women, and, most impressively, has benefited minorities by dramatically increasing graduation rates, thus boosting their chance for success in the job market.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne
In 2005, Sander cited race preferences for blacks failing the bar exam at four times the rate of whites nationally: “Black students admitted through preferences generally have quite low grades — not because of any racial characteristic, but because the preferences themselves put them at an enormous academic disadvantage.” The perverse result is that “the benefits of attending an elite school have been substantially overrated...job market data suggests that most black lawyers entering the job market would have higher earnings in the absence of preferential admissions, because better grades trump the costs in prestige.” Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne
MYTH: WOMEN ARE NOT HARMED BY RACE PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
FACT: GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
FACT: SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
From http://arizonacri.org/Home/MythsOtherResources.aspx
In fact, women are actually hurt in higher education by race preferences. Preferences favor minorities over women, and there have been several high-profile lawsuits by women alleging reverse discrimination, where women won. And due to the fact that more women than men attend college nowadays, MEN are most likely of all to benefit from preferences as colleges attempt to retain balance!
There may be a valid argument that we need more women and minorities in better schools. But trying to force them there after they complete high school, when they haven't been adequately academically prepared, isn't the right way to do it. It only serves to embarrass them and ensure they will fail.
MYTH: RACE PREFERENCES IN STATE PROGRAMS BENEFIT “MINORITIES”
FACT: “If you compare 1995-96 with 1999-01 — a clear before-and-after Prop 209 comparison,” says Sander, a longtime liberal civil rights activist, “you’ll see that, for African-Americans, the 1995 class had a four-year graduation rate of 26%, while the 2001 class had a 52% graduation rate [Hispanics numbers are comparable]. For whites and Asians, it barely changes. This is almost certainly due largely to the reduction of preferences. The five and six-year grad rates for minorities get pretty close to the white rates [within five points], which of course means that differences in academic performance have also narrowed a lot.”
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne
Prop 209 has largely worked as advertised, has not adversely affected women, and, most impressively, has benefited minorities by dramatically increasing graduation rates, thus boosting their chance for success in the job market.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne
In 2005, Sander cited race preferences for blacks failing the bar exam at four times the rate of whites nationally: “Black students admitted through preferences generally have quite low grades — not because of any racial characteristic, but because the preferences themselves put them at an enormous academic disadvantage.” The perverse result is that “the benefits of attending an elite school have been substantially overrated...job market data suggests that most black lawyers entering the job market would have higher earnings in the absence of preferential admissions, because better grades trump the costs in prestige.” Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne
MYTH: WOMEN ARE NOT HARMED BY RACE PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/38.html
FACT: GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html
FACT: SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.
"I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.
Source:
http://http//www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html
IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
“But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)
From http://arizonacri.org/Home/MythsOtherResources.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)