Approval Gap Shrinking for Racial Privacy Initiative

[Shrek]

California voters are narrowly leaning toward approval of the controversial Racial Privacy Initiative, according to the latest Field Poll.

Proposition 54, which would ban state and local governments from collecting racial and ethnic data on Californians, has the support of 47 percent of likely voters. Thirty-six percent would vote against the proposition. Nineteen percent of likely voters are undecided.


Link to complete story.

[silverweb]

1. I'm not sure about this one.

While I believe there are quite legitimate uses for demographic data, I'd like to know more about why some ethnic groups are for the proposition.

[pw]

2. Without the data there's no evidence of discrimination.

Imagine asking questions like "What percentage of black and hispanic students with combined SATs over 1200 got into a college in the University of California system, compared with the percentage of white and asian students?" and being told, "We don't know, and the law forbids us from finding out."

I'm not saying that the UCal system in particular discriminates, just that any large organization or business sector would be able to engage in unlawful discrimination, and unless there were memos telling people "don't hire any <whoever>" you wouldn't be able to prove it.

On the state level, you also wouldn't be able to point out things like schools serving kids primarily of one ethnic group getting different funding from schools serving those of another ethnic group, or be able to find disparities in grades and test scores ditto.

The groups that are for the proposition seem to think that it perpetuates racial stigmatization (because, y'know, if you didn't collect the data, no one would discriminate).

[Brother Buzz]

5. Thank you for that bit of insight

Sounds like a typical republican way to save money at someone else's expense.

Destroy Public Health Programs
Promote Workplace and Housing Discrimination
Neglect Our Neediest Schools

more

[TahitiNut]

6. Even worse than the examples you cited,

... there'd be no baseline against which one could determine whether employers were discriminating in hiring. When hiring is examined, it's compared to the ethnic and racial demographics of the geographic/demographic "labor pool" applicable to the positions filled. Those demographics are collected by... guess who ... government.

Government contractors have an affirmative contractual duty to hire in a nondiscriminatory manner. When their workforce is improbabalistically composed of non-diverse people, they can lose their contract ... which can cost them billions in expected revenues. For the Federal government, this is (too superficially) enforced by the Office of Federal Contracts Compliance.

Think Lockheed Missiles and Space, Boeing, Halliburton, Bechtel, SAIC, Carlyle, and a host of reichwing companies!

This would effectively be a license for them to post "whites only" on their doors.

[dfong63]

4. the aim of prop 54 is explicitly to deprive people of the data they need,

... to prove discrimination. Ward Connerly thinks that such data is too "divisive".

i guess it's OK with him that people are being discriminated against, as long as it can't be proved.

yeah, like shutting your eyes will make a problem go away.

[bemildred]

3. I'm agin it.

Knowledge is power.
Government requires information to govern well.

Next thing we'll have an initiative that says they can't
ask how much you make, like it would discriminate against
the rich, or the poor, or something. Or that businesses don't
have to tell whether they pollute, or that they can't ask people
what religion they like. This is bullshit.

[silverweb]

7. Thank you.

That makes perfect sense. My daughter and I decided a few years ago to start putting down "Multi-racial" or "Other" on all such surveys just out of contrariness. I'm a mixed-breed mongrel of European descent, but my daughter is also half Hispanic/Cherokee, so we figured we're "mixed" enough to skew the demographics.

We don't believe there any such thing as "racial purity," anyway. However, when it comes to proving or preventing discrimination and protecting needed services, I can see the absolute need for collecting the information.

Now I know Prop 54 would be absolutely wrong. Thanks for your input and clarification. :)

[TahitiNut]

8. The name "Racial Privacy" is a LIE.

Absofuckinlutely no person is required by law to identify themselves in any standard manner whatsoever! Whoopi Goldberg could either refuse to provide such a categorization or could say "White" with absolutely no fear of prosecution.

Nobody can, by law, tell anyone else what "race" they are ... and nobody can be required to say.

So, we already have "racial privacy" under the law. All racial demographics are totally voluntary.

[silverweb]

9. In other words...

...the title is a deliberate attempt to mislead people... just another typical Rethuglican dirty trick.

The demographics are necessary to protect the rights and services required by various groups and the Rethugs want to suppress that information.

Now nauseatingly typical of them to misrepresent the purpose of the proposition and their motives for it.

:grr:

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Another Republican attempt to hide the evidence.

Remember how Bush tried to eliminate unemployment statistics? This will accomplish the same thing. Republicans will be able to paint rosy pictures without anyone having evidence to prove otherwise.