
	:: UCLA TODAY Home
	:: Contact Us

	:: UCLA HOME
	©2004 The Regents of the University of California

VOL. 24. NO.2 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

Prop. 54 supports ignorance, not privacy

BY Andrew sabl

Few call Proposition 54 on the Oct. 7 recall ballot by its official name: “Classification by Race, Ethnicity and National Origin.” Proponents call it the Racial Privacy Initiative; opponents, the Information Ban.

It’s always tempting to say that the truth is in the middle, but in this case the opponents are right. Proposition 54 has nothing to do with privacy, and reflects the ignoble desire to close our eyes to where race still matters in society.

Though often portrayed as “son of 209” — the proposition that successfully banned government-run affirmative action in California — Proposition 54 has nothing to do with affirmative action. In fact, the goal it would endanger most is classic, “color-blind” nondiscrimination.

Proposition 54 would essentially ban boxes on forms. If it passed, state, local and county governments in California would no longer be allowed to ask people how they identified by race or ethnicity, and those who wanted to identify themselves couldn’t easily do so.

The initiative makes random exceptions that undercut its own rationale. There is an exemption for medical research, but not for public health studies (where the real ethnic and racial disparities show up). The state could collect race data to combat housing discrimination but not gaps in educational outcomes. Proposition 54 supporters claim (sometimes) that UC professors would still be allowed to do research on racial gaps with state money, but the proposition’s wording leaves this unclear at best.

Proponents have been unable to cite a concrete problem that the initiative would solve. That’s no wonder. For if the concern is affirmative action, 209 already prohibits that. And those determined to flout 209 won’t be thwarted by a ban on gathering racial information, unless proponents of the ban also want to censor UC applicants’ admissions essays, or, for that matter, personal names. (Best guess: Which applicant is most likely to be a non-Latino white — NaShauna Jones, Antonio Lopez or Thor Petersen?)

Some supporters mention the fact that thousands of UC applicants (in fact, a small fraction of the total) decline to state their race. But the fact that students already do this shows why “privacy” can’t be the reason for this proposal. Those who want to keep their race private already can. The measure would only frustrate people who want to have their race counted — because they want government to help them against discrimination, or sympathize with those who do.

If the measure passes, laws against discrimination would still exist, but government would be banned from finding out where they were most needed or which enforcement measures were working best. This would guarantee inefficiency, if not inequity.

Though supported by self-proclaimed libertarians and conservatives, Proposition 54 in fact reflects enormous faith in government. It only makes sense if one thinks that the government creates racial thinking, and has the power to end it by striking a few categories on official forms.

In fact, government can’t do that. What it can do — and what 54 would make harder — is find out where racial discrimination exists and debate a range of solutions to such discrimination. Knowledge is power; ignorance is not strength; and Proposition 54 is no solution.

Sabl is assistant professor of policy studies.